(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Performance of an internal combustion engine using mixtures of gasoline and hydrogen as the fuel"

Jerry Price Harkey 
:ansas State University, 1976 



A MASTER'S THESIS 



rtial fulfillment of 
nts for the degree 



MASTER OF SCIENCE 






TABLE OF CONTENTS 



C - Computed Results 



LIST OF PLATES 

Plate 

I Right Side of Experimental Layoir 

II Left Side of Experimental Layout 

III Hydrogen Storage Compartment 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 

1 Comparison of Fuel Storage Syster 

Range of 260 mi (418 km) . . 

2 Selected Engine Specifications.. 



LIST OF FIGURES 

Torque Dynamometer 

Hydrogen Flowmeter 

Air-Gasoline Ratio at 21.7 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 

Air-Gasoline Ratio at 28.9 ft-lb* Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 

Air-Gasoline Ratio at 43.4 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 

Air-Fuel Ratio at 21.7 ft-lbf Torque as a Funi 
tion of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 

Air-Fuel Ratio at 23.9 ft-lbf Torque as a Fun< 
tion of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 

Air-Fuel Ratio at 43.4 ft-lbf Torque as a Fun< 
tion of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 

Intake Manifold Vacuum at 21.7 ft-lbf Torque < 
a Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 

Intake Manifold Vacuum at 28.9 ft-lbf Torque < 
a Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 

Intake Manifold Vacuum at 43.4 ft-lbf Torque ; 
a Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 

Volumetric Efficiency at 21.7 ft-lbf Torque a; 
a Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 



Volumetric Efficiency at 28.9 ft-lbf Torque as 
a Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 54 

Volumetric Efficiency at 43.4 ft-lbf Torque as 
a Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 55 

Exhaust Temperature at 21.7 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 57 

Exhaust Temperature at 28.9 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 58 

Exhaust Temperature at 43.4 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 59 

Brake Specific Fuel Consumption at 21.7 ft-lbf 
Torque as a Function of Engine Speed and 
Per Cent Gasoline 61 

Brake Specific Fuel Consumption at 28.9 ft-lbf 
Torque as a Function of Engine Speed and 
Per Cent Gasoline 62 

Brake Specific Fuel Consumption at 43.4 ft-lbf 
Torque as a Function of Engine Speed and 
Per Cent Gasoline 63 

Thermal Efficiency at 21.7 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 65 

Thermal Efficiency at 28.9 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 66 

Thermal Efficiency at 43.4 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 67 

Ignition Timing at 21.7 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 69 

Ignition Timing at 28.9 ft-lbf Torque as a 
Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 70 



: 43.4 ft-lbf Torque i 



Chapter I 
Introduction 

Because of the increasing scarcity and cost of known 

These alternative fuels would be produced from abundant or 
renewable energy sources, thus freeing the energy market from 
dependence on scarce and expensive petroleum and natural gas. 

Hydrogen is one of the possible alternative fuels on 
which interest has been focused. In fact a "hydrogen economy" 
has been proposed, in which hydrogen replaces natural gas and 
petroleum. In the "hydrogen economy", hydrogen is manufac- 
tured by electrolysis or thermochemical cracking. In electro- 
lysis hydrogen is produced by passing an electric current 
through water. This current would be generated by some process 

windmills, tidal, solar powered steam turbines, or other 



In thermochemical cracking, a series of high temperature 
endothermic reactions are used to split water molecules into 
hydrogen and oxygen. The source of the energy could be 
nuclear, solar or some other source whose future supply can 
be reasonably assured. 

hydrogen? Why not use the electricity or heat directly. The 
1 



form of the energy to transport and utilize. Most important 
perhaps, is the fact that hydrogen can be stored until it is 
needed, then transported hundreds of miles to be used in much 
the same way natural gas and liquified petroleum gas is used 
presently. 

In considering the use of hydrogen in place of conven- 
tional hydrocarbon fuels in prime movers, additional factors 
besides ease of storage and transport must be considered, since 
hydrocarbon fuels are easy to store and a massive hydrocarbon 
distribution and transportation system already exists. Advan- 
tages of hydrogen include: ease of ignition inside the com- 
bustion chamber, high energy content per unit weight, high 
mass diffusivity and low emission of pollutants. 

Hydrogen ignition is usually not a problem as hydrogen - 
air mixtures will ignite over a far wider range of composition 
and spark plug conditions than will gasoline - air mixtures. 
Hydrogen ignites so easily that it has been combined with 
extremely lean gasoline - air mixtures to aid ignition. The 

in turn ignites the otherwise inert lean mixture (6, 14). 

Hydrogen possesses a high energy content per unit weight. 

the use of hydrogen for aircraft fuel. Reducing the weight 
of the fuel carried on an aircraft obtains a corresponding 
increase in payload. 



The high mass diffusivity of hydrogen helps offset a 
disadvantage discussed later - the ease of ignition of hydro- 
gen outside the combustion chamber. The high rate of diffusior 
helps lessen the chances of formation of combustible mixtures. 

that virtually no carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon pollutants 
are produced. What little is emitted is formed from engine 
lubricants. 

Disadvantages of hydrogen include: its ease of ignition 
outside the combustion chamber, volume required for storage, 
difficulty in sealing lines and tanks, emission of oxides of 

the engine intake manifold. 

The ease of ignition of hydrogen is caused by its low 
ignition energy and wide flammability limits (the ability to 
ignite over a wide range of fuel - air mixtures). For a 
stoichiometric mixture the minimum spark energy of H 2 (.019 
mi 1 1 i joules) is about an order of magnitude lower than that 
of hydrocarbons. As a result, flammable K 2 - air mixture may 
be ignited by numerous and relatively weak ignition sources. 
The lower and upper flammability limits of H 2 when mixed with 
air are usually between 4 to 75 per cent by volume at stan- 



1.4 to 7.6 | 



nd pressure. Those i 
t by volume (1). Hoi 



the rapid di: 



xtures helps offset thi: 



Hydrogen requires far more volume to store a given amount 
of energy than does gasoline. There are basically three ways 
to store hydrogen; compressed gas, cryogenic (very cold) liquid, 
and metal hydrides. A metal hydride contains hydrogen that 
can be dissociated via an endothermic reaction, and recharged 
via an exothermic reaction (2). In Table 1 the three ways of 
storage of hydrogen are compared with the energy equivalence 
of 20 gallons of gasoline. 





Gasoline 


Cryogenic 
LH 2 


Compressed 
GH 2 


Metallic 
Hydride 


Fuel : 
weig 


lit, lb (kg) 


118(53.5) 


29.5(13.4) 


29.5(13.4) 


400(181) 
(Mg H 2 ) 

8(0.23) 
(60 gal) 


volu 


ne, ft 3 (m 3 ) 


2.6(0.07) 
(20 gal ) 


6.7(0.19) 
(50 gal) 


35(1.0) 
(290 gal) 


Tanka 


je: 










weig 


it, lb (kg) 


30(13.6) 


400(181) 


3000(1361) 


100(45.4) 


volu 


ne, ft 3 (m 3 ) 


3(0.08) 


10(0.28) 


54(1.53) 


9(0.25) 


Total 












weig 


t, lb (kg) 


148(67) 


430(195) 


3030(1374) 


500(227) 



"able 1, even the "best" method of hydrogen 
! than twice the space of gasoline. It 
: whichever of the above methods are used, 



that the weight advantage of hydrogen fuel is wiped out by the 
weight of the tankage (2). 

Because of the small size of the hydrogen molecule, 
hydrogen systems are unusually liable to leak. Special care 
must be taken in sealing hydrogen systems because the hydrogen 
can leak through nominally tight seals and escape from systems 
that appear leak - free when tested with other fluids (1). 

ture (-253°C) and ambient (25°C) causes variant contraction 



of di: 



ile 



a I: 



ses resulting from 1 
failure of equipmer 



at cryogenic temperatures and whose coefficients of expansion 
and thermal conductivity are relatively low (1). 

Metal hydride systems, where high temperature conditions 
exist when heat is supplied to dissociate the hydrogen from t 
hydride storage material, have a tendency to heat treat and 
hydrogen embrittle. Again this may be prevented by the prope 
selection of alloys (such as stainless steel) that do not 
heat treat or embrittle under the expected conditions (3). 
Although it is possible, with proper ignition timing, 
to operate hydrogen engines at hig 
preignition, hydrogen engines seem to have a tendency to bac 
fire. As in a gasoline fueled engine a hydrogen engine prodi 
oxides of nitrogen from the nitrogen and oxygen in the air 
■during the high temperature of combustion. Each case can be 



ut 



prevented with exhaust gas recirculation or water injection. 
Exhaust gas recirculation prevents formation of oxides of 
nitrogen lowering the peak combustion temperature by diluting 
the combustion mixture with an inert gas. Water injection also 
limits the peak combustion temperature, but does so by cooling 
the combustion mixture (4). Since the exhaust of an all hydro- 
gen fueled engine is essentially all water, it can be condensed 
and used for water injection yielding a self contained water 
injection system (5). The use of condensed exhaust for water 
injection, rather than the direct use of the gas, is desirable 
because a given engine equipped with water injection will have 
a somewhat higher power output than the same engine with exhausl 
gas recirculation. 

Research so far has been oriented either toward 100 per 
cent fueled hydrogen engines or adding hydrogen to a gasoline - 
air mixture to improve the case of ignition of extraordinarily 
lean mixtures of gasoline and air (6,7). 

where the hydrogen is used as a fuel and not just to improve 
the ignition characteristics are two fold. The use of gasoline 
and hydrogen could increase the range or decrease the bulk of 
fuel storage components as compared to an all hydrogen fueled 
vehicle. An optimum mixture of hydrogen and gasoline could 
hopefully be found maximizing the benefits of each while 
minimizing the disadvantages of each. This optimum mixture 
could capitalize on hydrogen's ease of ignition and clean 



combustion and gasoline's high energy content per volume. 
At the same time the heat of vaporization of gasoline could 
cool the mixture and minimize the tendency of hydrogen mixtures 
to backfire. 

Since no one else has done studies where hydrogen has con- 
tributed a significant amount of energy in the fuel, this study 
was undertaken and the objective was to evaluate the performance 
of an internal combustion engine using mixtures of gasoline and 
hydrogen as the fuel . 



Chapter II 
Literature Review 



Most of the published work dealing with hydrogen fueled 
engines has involved the use of 100% hydrogen fueled engines 
and engines operating on an extremely lean gasoline - air 
mixture using hydrogen as a supplement. 

According to de Boer, et al . (8), research on hydrogen 
engines began in the 1920's. By the early 1930's work had 
progressed to the point where a fleet of hydrogen fueled 
vehicles were tested. The work was apparently interupted in 
the late 1930's by the beginning of World War II in Europe. 
In some of the above work it was found that by using direct 
injection of hydrogen into the cylinder, controlling the engine 
by varying the amount of hydrogen injected per engine cycle, 
and burning lean mixtures, indicated thermal efficiencies as 
high as 52% were obtained. It was speculated that the high 
efficiency was obtained in part because of the elimination of 
pumping losses, and in part because the effective ratio of 
specific heats is larger in lean mixtures than in nearly 
stoichiometric mixtures. In theory efficiency increases in 

!l - ^FT j where r y i s the compression ratio and k is the ratio 
of specific heats. 

Interest in hydrogen-fueled engines was revived recently 



because they look attractive from the viewpoint of exhaust 
emissions and the prospects of a hydrogen economy or the availa- 
bility of hydrogen to replace hydrocarbon fuels. 

More recently a great deal of work has been carried out 
by the Billings Energy Corporation on carbureted hydrogen- 
fueled engines. 

One of the more important areas Billings Energy Corporation 
has been involved in is that of methods to prevent backfiring 
in hydrogen fueled engines (9,10). Billings researchers found 
that any technique for cooling "hot spots" prior to the opening 
of the intake valve will reduce the backfire problem. These 
"hot spots" consist of high temperature zones on the interior 
of the combustion chamber such as a spark plug, an exhaust 
valve, or a sharp projection such as a casting imperfection or 
deposits that accumulate during gasoline operation. Exhaust 
gas recirculation, because it introduces an inert gas in the 
combustion chamber that lowers the peak temperature of combus- 
tion, reduces backfiring. However, injecting what is essentially 
steam into the intake reduces volumetric efficiency and con- 
sequently engine power output and efficiency. Increased con- 
duction via higher surface to volume ratios of the combustion 
chamber reduces backfiring, and, if accomplished by increasing 
the compression ratio, increases efficiency. Mixtures with an 
equivalence ratio (ratio of hydrogen mass in the mixture to 
the mass of hydrogen for a stoichiometric mixture) less than 
.6 usually do not exhibit intermittant backfires. Because of 



Us positive effect or thermal ef f ici ency, 1 i quid water inductioi 
was selected as the main method of controlling backfires. How- 
ever it should be noted that most Billings conversions have 
included increased compression ratios to a range of about 11:1 
to 12:1, and lean operation during normal engine loading. 
Finally Lynch (10) of Billings Energy Corporation recommended 
special precautions to insure that all spark plug leads are 
separated or shielded. This is to prevent the intense current 
pulses in one spark plug lead from inducing a high enough 
voltage in an adjacent lead to cause an unwanted spark. 

Billings Energy Corporation has researched methods for 
the control of N0 X , which as was noted in the introduction is 
the only serious pollutant from hydrogen fueled engines (4). 
By slightly retarding the spark advance, No x can be reduced 

Exhaust gas recirculation or water induction can be used to 
prevent the formation of N0 X , with water induction being the 
prefered method. It is interesting to see that the last two 
methods of N0 X control parallel backfire control techniques. 
Billings researchers found that it required more water for 
N0 X control than for backfire control. 

Billings Energy Corporation has progressed from theore- 
tical and experimental analysis (11) of a hydrogen powered 
vehicle to real world testing (12). A hydrogen powered bus 
was operated in the Provo-Orem area with no major problems. 
In the future Billings plans to market more buses and to 



11 

produce at least 10 hydrogen-fuel eci commuter cars. 

Researchers at the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) of the 
California Institute of Technology have been investigating 
the use of hydrogen enrichment of lean gasoline - air mixtures, 
particualrly as applied to piston aircraft engines. Menard, 
Moynihan, and Rupe (6), in a systems analysis study conclude 
hydrogen enrichment can be used to reduce fuel consumption 
and exhaust emissions. In this study, hydrogen was catalyti- 
cally generated from gasoline on the aircraft. By mixing the 
hydrogen with the normal gasoline fuel, the lean f 1 ammabi 1 i ty 
limit of the fuel is extended to ultralean fuel-air mixtures. 
This improved the thermal efficiency of the engine for the 
reason that the thermal efficiency of a piston internal com- 
bustion engine improves with lean combustion. 

In the next phase of the study Chirivella, Duke, and 
Menard (13) conducted engine tests using hydrogen enriched 
lean mixtures. It was concluded from the tests that, at least 



run ultrale 



momy. Rough 



was avoided through the adjustment of spark advance and other 
engine variables. JPL does, however, intend to flight test a 
Beech Duke B60 operating ultralean both with and without hydn 

Stebar and Parks of General Motors Research Laboratories 
conducted a study (14) of hydrogen supplemented fuel. This 
study comes as close as any found to investigating a gasoline- 



:: 



hydrogen mixture where hydrogen actually supplies a significant 
amount of the energy. In one of the gasoline-hydrogen mixtures 
studies in the above investigation, hydrogen supplied 23* of 
the energy, or 10% of the fuel by weight. A 1973 intermediate 
Oldsmobile was modified to run on the aformentioned mixture. 
This research effort was predicated on meeting the most strin- 
gent federal exhaust emission standards of 0.41 g/mile HC, 
3.4 g/mile CO, and 0.40 g/mile N0 X . Although N0 X and CO 

were too high. Stebar and Parks reported an equavalent 
calculated (by carbon balance) gas mileage of 11.0 mpg, averaged 
over the 1975 Federal Test Procedure. This value surely is 
not very high when compared with automobiles on the market 

automobile tested were given in the report. 






Chapter III 
Equipment and Testing Procedure 

In this chapter experimental equipment, layout, 
ed will be explained. 

trols used in the stud} are shown in Plates I, II, III. 
and obstructions in the area of the layout, a single pho 



the 



pic 



The engine used for this study was a 1968 model, 
96.6 cu. in. (1. 58 1 ) displacement, four cylinder, horizon, 
tally opposed, electronically fuel injected, air cooled, 
spark ignition, internal combustion, Volkswagen engine. 
Table 2 lists important specifications for the engine as 
it existed for this study. 



adjusted for best torque (100% 
gasoline only) or lean best 
torque 



Spark plug type 
Spark plug gap 
Engine oil 
Bore 

Stroke 

Displacement 
Compression Rat- 
Torque (SAE) 
Output (SAE) 



Bosch W145 Tl 

.28 in. (17 mm) 

Mobile Delvac 1100 SAE30 

3.36 in (85.5 mm) 

2.72 in. (64 mm) 

96.6 cu. in. (1.584 1) 

8.8:1 

86.8 ft. lb. P 2800 rpm 

65 bhp @ 4600 rpm 



It may be note. 



be mentioned latei 









EXPLANATION OF PLATE ! 



Hydrogen Mixture Conti 
' ■ : Spe £ ■ "■ 



Bosch Electronic Control Unit 

Switch to Select Control Mode 

Power Supply for Air Flow Transducer 

Air Flow Transducer (for Engine Control) 

Hydrogen Mixing Valve 

Hydrogen Flow Transducer 

Modified Propane Convertor 

Electrically Operated Hydrogen Flow Shutoff 

Valve 
Hydrogen Line 
Location of Tee Junction in Manifold Vacuum 



suring Equipment 



: Potei 



ere 



B. Thermos Bottle Containing Ice Bath 
Hydraulic Pump Dynamometer 
Thermocouple in Exhaust Stream 
Gasoline Flow Measuring Equipment 

A. Location of "Start-Stop"Swi tch 

B. Location of Lever Arm and Trigger Swi 1 
Ignition Switch 

Switch for Electrically Operated Hydrogen 
Flow Shutoff 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE II 
.eft Side of Experimental Layout 



Power Sup 


ly fo 


Interface 


Hardw 


Kim I Mic 


oproc 


Teletype 




Daytronic 


Kodul 


Beckman C 
Strain Ga 
Power Sup 


unter 
ge Tr 
ly fo 



EXPLANATION OF PLATE III 





xrTr 


B 




to iSti 


^ v ~ 


op'* 


^s| 




o x 









fuel injection control (Plate I, item 4). For details of 
this system as well as details on the minor modifications 
performed on it, the reader is referred to the thesis of Mr. 
Walt Williams (18). Gasoline - air mixture control was pro- 
vided during the test runs by the system designed by Mr. 
Firooz Bakhtiari - Najad and utilizing the Kim 1 microproces 
(Plate II, item 8) and interface hardware (Plate II, item 7). 
Because this system was used as designed, except for the ver. 
minor changes discussed below, anc because this control 
system was itself the subject of a masters degree thesis, 
very little explanation will be given here and the reader 
is referred to the masters degree thesis of Mr. Firooz 
Bakhtiari - Najad (20) for details of the system. There 






The 



the gasoline - air mixture that were used in this study, 
that is 40%, 50%, 60% and 80% of stoichiometric, were plai 
in the memory of the Kim 1 and the appropriate memory 

necessary. This system was originally designed to contro 
the spark advance, however for the present work, this coi 
trol was disconnected. The teletype (Plate II, item 9) 
was used to print out the control programs of the micropr 
cessor. The print outs were used to check the correctnes 
of the program after it had been loaded. The programs 
were loaded from paper tapes, again using the teletype. 



21 



through a series of manual and electric (solenoid) valves. 
Each hydrogen tank (Plate III, item 2) came equipped with a 
valve (Plate III, item 6), kept closed during transport and 
storage, of course, and when no tests were being run. To 
insure safety, the hydrogen tanks were stored in a "compart- 
ment" between thick, concrete bulkheads. The hydrogen tanks 

(Plate III, item 2) that maintained a line pressure of about 

flowed through a manual shutoff valve (Plate III, item 3) 

After the manual shutoff valve the hydrogen flowed to the 
solenoid operated shutoff (Plate I, item 11). This is the 

conversion from 100% gasoline and Bosch control to hydrogen - 
gasoline mixtures and microprocessor control. This switch 
made conversion a simple process of setting the hydrogen mix- 
ture rich and flipping two toggle switches. Next the hydrogen 

which the water passages were blocked as the hydrogen was 

does propane). The convertor contained an important safety 
valve that shut off the hydrogen flow in the absence of any 
manifold vacuum. This valve performed flawlessly during the 



dozen or so backfires that occured and prevented any combus 
tion from continuing. The second function of the convertor 
was to reduce the line pressure from approximately 40 psig 
to a pressure near atmospheric. The hydrogen then flowed 
through a flow transducer (Plate I, item 9). This flow 
transducer was the transducer for the Gould Datametrics 
model 800-LM flowmeter, which was used to measure the hydro 
gen flow. Finally, the hydrogen enters the hydrogen mixing 

carburetor with the throttle plates removed and the idle 
passages plugged. 

Besides hydrogen mass flow rate the following quantitii 

pressure, time of test, engine speed, torque , percent of 
stoichiometric gasoline mixture, intake manifold vacuum, 
ignition timing, exhaust gas temperature, pressure drop acn 

Wet and dry bulb temperatures were obtained through thi 
use of a sling psychrometer (Plate I, item 18) using distil' 
water on the wet bulb wick. Wet and dry bulb temperatures 
were always obtained in the area just ahead of the inlet 
of the air flow nozzle, since their readings were critical 
in the calculation of air mass flow. 

room near the testing area. 



Starting and ending 1 



irded from the author 
.truments electronic 



The engine speed was obtained by using a fixed magnetic 
pick-up and a 60 tooth metallic gear mounted on the drive shi 
between the clutch and dynamometer (Plate I, item 3). A 
60 tooth gear was used because the output frequency (in 
Hertz) is numerically equal to RPM, allowing frequency metei 

sensing pickup is obscured by protective mesh in Plate I, 
detail of the pickup is given in figure 1. 



& 1 



a digital display of the engine speed. 

The torque output of the engine was measured using a 
hydraulic pump dynamometer (Plate I, item 16) exerting 



2 5 
(Plate II, item 13). The power absorbing element of this 

from the hydraulic oil reservoir (Plate II, item 5), pumped 

hydraulic oil filter (Plate II, item 4) and back to the tank. 

trolled by the operator, and the torque reading from the lever 
arm and strain gauge transducer was displayed digitally on 
the Daytronic modular instrument system. A switch on the 
Daytronic module selected the display of torque or engine spee 
Water was circulated through a coil of copper tubing (Plate 
II, item 3) inside the hydraulic oil reservoir. Although the 

evidentally kept the temperature of the oil sufficiently 

the subject of the dynamometer it should be noted that due 
to pressure limitations of the hydraulic motor, full power 
tests could not be run. Instead data were taken at torques 
of 21.7, 23.9 and 43.4 ft.-lbf., 1/4, 1/3 and 1/2 of the 
SAE rated torque of the engine, respectively. For the 
general layout of the Torque Dynamometer see figure 2. 



Figure 2. Torque Dynamometer (from reference 21) 



The intake manifold vacuum was measured with a vertical 
mercury manometer (Plate II, item 1). In a previous study 
(18) the tee (Plate I, item 13) had been placed in the vacuum 
line from the manifold to the manifold pressure sensor (one 
of the components of the Bosch fuel injection system) and 
the tee was connected to the manometer. For the previous 
study the tee was placed i n thi s 1 ocation because it was felt 
the manufacturer placed the manifold tap for the pressure 
sensor to give a fairly constant and accurate measure of the 
pressure. The same tee location was employed in the present 
study for the above reason and to enable this study to be 
compared to the earlier study. 

To facilitate the recording of ignition timing, a degree 
wheel was constructed and affixed to the cooling fan which was 
already equipped with a top dead center marker (for no. 1 
cylinder). A stationary marker originally supplied with the 
engine was used as the timing marker. Ignition timing data 
were taken with a Sears - Penske induction triggered strobo- 
scope timing light. A handle was attached to the base of 
the distributor to make it easier to smoothly adjust the spart 
advance. 

motive force (emf) produced by a two - junction Chromel - 



(Plate I, item 17) and the other in a thermos bottle 
an ice bath (Plate I, item 15B). The emf was measun 



27 
null - balance millivolt potentiometer (Plate I, item 15A). 

a chromel - alumel temperature emf table. 

The air mass flow rate was calculated from the pressure 
drop across a 1.59 in. (4.04 cm.), ASME long radius flow 
nozzle (Plate I, item 14B), measured with a 10 in. (25.4 cm.) 
water micro - manometer (Plate II, item 2). The nozzle was 
placed in one end of a surge tank (Plate I, item 14A), and the 
engine drew air from the opposite end. The surge tank was 
used to dampen the intake pulse from the engine to insure 
stable flow through the airflow nozzle. 

Gasoline consumption was measured by timing how long it 
took to consume a known mass of gasoline. When a gasoline 

scales (Plate I, item 180) on a platform in back of the gaso- 
line tank (Plate I, item 18C) to balance the weight of the 
gasoline. The counter start - stop switch (Plate I, item 18A) 
was placed on start. As the gasoline was used, the platform 

counter trigger switch was released by the lever arm (Plate I, 

known mass was placed on top of the gasoline tank and the 
counter start - stop switch was moved to stop. As the tank 
platform rose again and the known mass consumed, the counter 
trigger switch was again released and the counter shut off. 
If another run was to be made, the counter was reset and the 



Before engine startup, the gasoline tank was filled, if 
necessary, full hydrogen tanks were connected, if necessary, 

tests were to be run using hydrogen) and the Daytronic torque 
and RPM meter was calibrated as per the instructions of Dr. 
Ralph Turnquist of the Kansas State University Mechanical 
Engineering Department (15). The torque meter was first 

test weight was applied and the meter adjusted to read 60 
ft. - lbf. using the span adjustment. This process was re- 
peated until the reading was consistently zero with no load 
and 60 ft. - lbf. with the test weight. The RPM meter was 
first adjusted to read zero with the zero adjustment, then the 
"CAL" button was pushed to feed a signal from an internal 
crystal oscillator to the meter, and the readout was adjusted 
to 5,000 RPM. Again the process was repeated until the reading 
was consistently zero with no input and 5,000 with the input 
from the internal crystal oscillator. Just before the engine 
was started, water to the heat exchanger in the dynamometer 
hydraulic reservoir was turned on as were the auxiliary 
cooling fans (Plate II, item 11) . 

The engine was started using the Bosch fuel injection 

checked out, ice was supplied to the reference junction of 
the thermocouple and a simple calibration procedure was per- 
formed on the hydrogen flow meter in accordance with the 
procedures described in the operating instructions for the 
meter (16). The hydrogen flow meter is shown in Plate II, 



item 17. For detail of the meter, including the location of 
switches and adjustments see figure 3. Before the meter was 
turned on the mechanical zero position of the meter was checkec 
and adjusted if need be with the screwdriver adjustment on 
the panel meter itself. The meter was turned on and, with 
the engine running on the Bosch System a small flow of hydro- 
gen, in a range from .3 to .5 SCFM, was commenced. It was 
discovered, that to assure the accuracy of the calabration, 
this flow should continue for at least 15 to 20 minutes. 
The speed with which conditions in the transducer became 
stable seemed to be fairly independent of the rate of hydro- 
gen flow - but it was imperative that some measurable flow 
did exist. After warmup the calibration procedure continued. 
The hose line leading from the transducer was pinched lightly 
shut with a pair of vice grips. To prevent damage to the hose 
from the jaws of the vice grips it was sandwiched between 
two small rectangles of sheet metal (Plate II, item 19). 
The "FUNCTION" switch was set to "CALIBRATE" and the 3 - 
position toggle switch to "BAL". If the meter read zero, 
and the last calibration seemed sensible, this was a good 
sign the warmup had been long enough. If the meter did not 
read zero, warmup with a small flow of hydrogen was continued 

fairly invariant with time) the "BAL" screwdriver potenti ometei 
was adjusted until the reading was zero. The 3 - position 

to read full scale. The three - position toggle switch was thi 




Figure 3. Hydrogen Fl owmeter (f rom referen 



31 



returned to its center position and the meter was adjusted 
to read zero using the "ZERO" and "FINE ZERO" adjustments. 
The hydrogen was then switched off with the hydrogen toggle 
switch and the vise grips were released. As a final step 
before shifting the engine to microprocessor control, the 
location in memory of the desired air - gasoline ratio, was 
loaded into the initialization program location 0228. The 

. location of the initialization program was selected and 
ayed, all switches on the interface circuit board (Plate 
I, item 7) were placed in the down (operate) mode and the "GO" 
utton was pushed on the microprocessor. Now the engine 
as ready for operation on hydrogen - gasoline mixtures or 



Now switchover to microprocessor control was begun. 
Concurrently, a procedure called best torque was used to 
set the ignition timing for tests involving 100% gasoline, 
and a procedure called lean best torque was used to set the 
ignition timing and hydrogen flow in the rest of the tests. 

Best torque and lean best torque procedures were used 

parameters. Although operation could be achieved with the 
timing left stock for some of the hydrogen - gasoline mix- 
tures it might not be the optimum ignition timing for that 
mixture, in essence "cheating" that mixture when compared 



': ? 



with the engine running under stock conditions. Furthermore, 
operation simply could not be obtained for some of the gasoline - 
hydrogen mixtures utilizing a high precentage of hydrogen, 
if the timing had not been changed without preignition and/or 
backfires resulting. The lean best torque procedure was used 

in an attempt to optimize the fuel - air ratio and to follow 
a consistent pattern to obtain the desired hydrogen mixture. 

mixture selection, and this provided a basis for comparison 
between, the various hydrogen - gasoline fuel mixtures. Further- 
used in the auto industry and by other I.C. engine researchers, 
making this study comparable to others. Lean best torque and 
best torque procedure were related to the author in a conver- 
sation with Mr. Walt Williams of Amoco Oil Company (19) and 
adapted by the author to this particular study. For the 100% 
gasoline cases, switchover to microprocessor control was 
obtained by merely moving the gasoline - air ratio control mode 
switch (Plate I, item 5), mounted on top of the Bosch system 
control box (Plate II, item 4), to the position marked 
"MICRO - P". The desired speed and torque was set, if it had 
not been previous to the switchover. Lean best torque (LBT) 
was found by first moving the distributor to a obviously 
retarded position, that is moving it until an obvious RPM drop 
occured. Then the timing was slowly advanced, with the 
throttle (Plate I, item 1) being closed to maintain approxi- 



:■; 



obtained by advancing the ignition timing, the timing was 
retarded slightly and process repeated to assure that the 
minimum spark advance was obtained. For gasoline - hydrogen 
mixtures the desired speed and torque was obtained for the 
higher torque in a somewhat different manner than for the lower 
two torques. In the tests that were conducted under the 
43.4 ft-lbf load the engine was set at the desired speed 
and at an intermediate torque (approximately 25 ft-lbf) 
while operating on the Bosch syster . Just prior to switchover 
the hydrogen mixture control (Plate 1, item 2) was placed in 

The hydrogen toggle switch was moved to the "HYDROGEN" 
position, and the gasoline - air control mode switch was moved 
to "MICRO-P". After this, the torque was slowly increased 
to 43.4 ft-lbf and the speed kept constant by opening the 
throttle, all the while the operator was taking care to operate 
with a rich mixture. The procedure for tests taken at torques 
of 21.7 ft-lbf and 28.9 ft-lbf was the same except that the 
desired torque was set before switchover and there was no 
need for the load increase. Now in both cases the hydrogen 



mixture was leaned out, wh 
the speed constant. The m 
RPM drop was noted. The m 
to prevent lean operation during RP 

the same manner as d 



e closing the throttle to keep 
ture was leaned out until an 
ture was then richened somewhat 
ises in the best 
! condition was obtained in 



when preigm'tion was encountered. When preignition occi 
the ignition timing was retarded to a point considered ! 
(that is preignition would not reoccur) by the operator 



ngmtion \ 



■ed. After best toi 



stablished, 



to susi 



After best torque or lean best torque conditions were 
obtained, the throttle and the hydrogen mixture valve were 
taped in place, the timing of the gasoline consumption was 
usually begun first and the following data were all taken 
during the fuel consumption test if time allowed. If time 
did not allow it, the data were obtained shortly before or 
after the gasoline consumption test. These data were: 
hydrogen flow rate, pressure drop across the air flow nozzle, 
exhaust gas thermocouple EMF, ignition timing, intake manifold 
vacuum, mass of fuel measured, and the time of test. Wet 
and dry bulb temperature were taken during one of the three 
tests run consecutively, for each set of operating conditions, 
if time allowed. If time did not allow it, the temperatures 
were taken just after the three tests. Atmospheric pressure 
was recorded after a number of operating condition sets were 

consecutive tests run under the same operating conditions. 
The number of operating condition sets run were usually 
two to four before the atmospheric pressure was read. The 



length of 1 
regarded as 



led atmospher 
length of til 



Chapter IV 
Development of Equations 

This chapter will present an explanation of the equation 
sed to reduce the data taken in this study. Actual data 
eduction was done with a Hewlett - Packard 29C programmable 
alculator. A print out of this program is included in 

.hey appear in the two programs, hence, the programs will 

n two, only because of the limitation of program steps 1m- 
osed by the calculator. Program 2 should be viewed as a 
ogical extension of Program 1 . 

First the gasoline consumption in 1 bm per hr was 



The hydt 
plicated. 



Hydrogen Consumption = SCFM (air equivalen 
(lbm/hr) .141 f SCFM air \ 

\SCFM hydj 



>(P) 



■iw 



SCFM is "stai 
foot of air 



light is equal to the weii 
iressure is 29.92" Hg and 



the temperature is 1 5°C (16). Sinci 



SCFM of air, a conversion factor (.141) had to be applied 

to obtain SCFM hydrogen. The density of hydrogen 

(5.612 x 10" 3 lbm/ft 3 ) was found in reference 22. 

Power output was calculated with the equation: 

Power Output - Torque (ft-lbf) x RPM (ffffn") x 2A rev 1 (3) 
(hp) ftlhf , 

33000/ f ^n f \ 

Brake specific fuel consumption were calculated with the 



ine Consumptionl hr) + Hydrogen Consumpti on( hr j 



BSFC/ Tbrn \ = Gasoline Consumptionl hr/ + Hydrogei 
lhFh7J Power Output (hpT^ 

Thermal efficiency was calculated using the lower heating 

value of hydrogen from reference 23. The lower heating value 

(API). Reference 24 was used to reduce the observed specific 
gravity to that at 60°F. In reference 25 a formula was found 
to calculate the lower heating value if the specific gravity (d) 

Q LVH = (22,320 - 3,780d 2 ) - 90.8(26-1 5d) (5) 

After determining the above, the thermal efficiency could 

be found using the following equation: 

/ BTU \ 

N t h = Power Output (hp) x 2?45.lUp - hrj (6) 

Gasolineflbnnx 19000rBTUU Hydrogenfl bm'ix 51 623/" BTU \ 
Consumed^ hrj ^lbmj Consumed^ hr J Vlbm/ 

Even though it is customary to use the higher heating value 

(HHV) of a fuel in thermal efficiency calculations (27), 

lower heating values (LHV) were used in this study for 



three reasons. 

First, this was done to facilitate comparison of this study 
to reference 18. Second, it was believed the LHV represented 
a more realistic measure of the heat available in the fuels, since 
it was doubted that condensation occured during the expansion 
stroke in the engine. Finally, although Obert (27) advocates the 
use of HHV he also states that LHV is "invariably" used in thermal 
efficiency calculations involving gaseous fuels. The hydrogen 
mixed with the gasoline in the tests run for this study was 

urged in observing thermal efficiencies and note should be taken 
whether LHV or HHV is used. 

In order to calculate air mass flow, air density and stan- 
dard density pressure drop across the flow nozzle had to be 
calculated first. The density equation is taken from reference 26. 



Density = .49U lbf/in 2 
{ft) -.38/-P 



< Hbf/in 2 >,x Atmospheric Pressure (in- 
V in-Hg J 



He) 



ressure of (lbf/in 2 ,) - j_. 491/ 1 bf/in 2 \x Atm (in-Hg) x 
Vapor 9 

bulb \ 

( T wet bulb(° F > " T wet bulb<° F )] * 2700 j 

53 ' 34 Gbm-S * 144(in2/ft2) X C T dry bulb° F + 459 - 6 ° R J 



aturated water vapor at T W( 
bles. Note that S3 . 34 fft-Tbf ' 



/■ft-Jbf\is th 
Llbm-ORj 



btained 
s constant 






(Density) 



Now the CFM of air flow could be calculated. In the 

calibration procedure on the 1.59 in. (4.04 cm) nozzle and 
the result was equation 11 in reference 18. It was later 
found that this equation was somewhat in error (28). The 

air flow = 59.868 'Standard Density Pressure Drop--' 5 

(ft 3 /min| [ Across the Flow Nozzle (9 

The air mass flow was calculated with the relation- 
ship: 
Air Mass Flow Rate = Air Flow/ ' ft 3 ) x Densi ty f Vbm \ x 60/m in'. 



tical Maximum = 96. 6 fin 3 ) x RPMlmin ] x Dens i ty (fPV x 60/mi_nj 

(ID 



8/in J \ 

(tp; 



Then the value from equation 10 could be divided by i 
alue from equation 11 to obtain volumetric efficiency. 






fifes] 

Air Mass Flow Ratel hr/ 
Gasoline 7Tb¥T+ Hydrogen / I bun 
ConsumptionVhr; Consumption*, hr ; (13) 



Likewise 

1 and 10 



as calculated from equ; 



(1M\ 

Air - Gasoline Ratio = Air Mass Flow Ratel.hr J 
Gasoline Consumption H bm\ 



Presentation of Results 

Data reduced by the equations presented in the last chapter 
yielded the quantities to be discussed in this chapter. These 
quantities were plotted on the graphs that follow in this chapter. 

The first quantity to be discussed is the air-gasoline 
ratio. The air-gasoline ratio was governed by the KIM - 1 and 
related control system. A detailed analysis of the control 

but a few trends in the air-gasoline ratio will be pointed out. 
For the torque settings of 21.7 ft-lbf, 28.9 ft-lbf and 43.4 ft-lbf 
the air-gasoline ratio is shown in Figures 4,5 and 6 respec- 
tively. For a base, 14:1 was used for 100% gasoline mixtures. 
Hence the desired ratio for 80S gasoline was 17.5:1, for 60% 
it was 23.3:1, for 50% it was 28:1 and for 40?; gasoline the 
desired ratio was 35:1. The ratios were all fairly close to 
the desired, but there were some deviations, and the curves seemed 
to have a "hyperbolic" shape. The reason for thi s "hyperbol ic" 
shape is not known. Although it would have been desirable for 
the curves to be more of a straight line and closer to the desired, 
it should be mentioned that the various air-fuel ratios showed 
good separation and were free from wild fluctuations. 

Air-fuel ratio was dependent on the KIM 1 control system and 



4 1 







zr.z^z ~ 60- 


A 
S / \ 




^ 


x 


. s\ 


%v ~^ --- 




^^-. .^° 


»-- -\ 




--\^ 


^ -^ ^ 


\- 


— * — — _« — • 







Engine Speed (rpm) 



\ 




Engine S-peed (rpm) 




Engine Speed (rplti) 




e Speed (rpm) 
21.7 ft-lbf Ti 




(rpm) 
bf Torque 




Engine Speed (rpm) 



ae- 



on the operator's ability to select the correct hydrogen flow. 
Air-fuel ratios that occured in the 21.7 ft-lbf torque tests are 
plotted in figure 7 for 21.7 ft-lbf, in figure 8 for 28.9 ft- 
lbf, and in figure 9 for 43.4 ft-lbf. The smoothness and 
separation as well as the linearity of the air-fuel ratio lines 
seemed to support the contention that the LBT procedure was 
an effective way to obtain consistent air-fuel ratios for a given 

close at 2,000 and 3,000 rpm with torques of 28.9 ft-lbf and 
at 2,000 and 2,500 rpm with a torque of 43.4 ft-lbf. However, 

ratio seemed to be satisfactorily controlled. 

The curves in figures 10, 11 and 12 represent the trends in 
intake manifold vacuum. Note that the verticle scale in Figure 
12 differs from that in Figures 10 and 11. Two trends that are 

of fuel. It can be seen that intake vacuum decreased with 
speed and load. This occured when the throttle was opened and 
the manifold pressure increased to provide more air to the 

of the fuel. One trend is the comparatively low vacuum at 1500 

momentum effect at low speeds. As the intake stream velocity 
increases some ram effect occurs from the momentum carried by 
the air stream. A high intake manifold pressure, obtained by 




Engine Speed (rpm) 




Engine Speed (rpm) 



5 2 



the cylinders. A second trend is not so easy to explain, that 
is the peculiar "dip" in manifold vacuum that occured at 2500 
rpm. It can only be speculated that inlet dynamics peculiar to 
this engine at this speed caused this "dip". There could have 
been some sonic disturbance wave at this rpm that impeded inlet 
flow and necessitated raising the manifold pressure. The trend 
that occured as the hydrogen portion of the fuel was increased 
was, in general, as expected. As the hydrogen portion of the 
fuel was increased, this gaseous fuel displaced more and more of 
the air flow in the manifold passages. To compensate, the throttle 
was opened to provide more manifold pressure, and hence more air 
to the cylinders. 

Volumetric efficiency is shown in figures 13, 14 and 
15. Note that the verticle scale for the last graph differs from 
the verticle scale of the first two graphs. Volumetric efficiency 
also exhibited two trends common in spark ignition IC engines. 
It can be seen from the graphs that volumetric efficiency in- 
creased with speed and load. Volumetric efficiency usually in- 
creases with speed (due to the momentum ram effect discussed) 
until a point is reached where fluid friction losses become 
greater than the gain from the momentum ram 



ni ? 



lat t 



dy increase with speed. Th 
e only partial load 
far enough below maximum that 
metric efficiency increased w 



■am effect. Apparently 

irobably due to the fact 
and the manifold flow 
■end did not set in. 




Engi-ne Speed (rpm) 



— - 






EE 


■* 80Z y 




J 






*# 



Engine Speed (rpm) 




Engine Speed (rpm) 



as the throttle was opened to permit a qreater load (at consl 
speed) the pressure drop across the throttle plate decreased, 
increasinq volumetric efficiency. One curious occurence in 
volumetric efficiency can be found in the 28.9 ft-lbf torque 
graph at 2500 rpm. Here the volumetric efficiency values se< 
to be abnormally "clustered" together. It is conjectured thi 
this occurence was caused by the same circumstances that cau< 
the "dip" in manifold vacuum at this point. However it is di 
cult to explain then, why this behavior was absent from the c 
two torque settings. In general, as the proportion of hydroc 
in the fuel mixture increased, volumetric efficiency decrease 
As the hydrogen displaced air in the fixed manifold volume, 1 
throttle was opened to compensate. This increased the speed 
density of the air which increased the losses due to fluid 



This exhaust gasoline temperature shown in figures 16, 17 
and 13 tended to increase with speed and load. This was expected. 
As the speed was increased less time was available for heat 
transfer to the walls of the combustion chamber and the exhaust 
temperature rose accordingly. Compounding the effect was the 
fact that as speed was increased with a given torque, power 

unit time to increase the output. Again, less heat, as a per 
cent of the total, could be transfered through the cylinder walls 
and the exhaust temperature rose, and more heat was transfered 
by the exhaust stream. The same phenomenon took place as the 







Figure 17 Ex 




Engine Speed (rpm) 



6C 
load was increased. It was expected that as the proportion of 
gasoline in the fuel decreased and the cooling effect of the 
heat of vaporization of the gasoline decreased along with it, 

to a small degree, more significant perhaps was the lack of any 
alarming temperature increases with increasing hydrogen. There 
certainly were no equipment-threatening temperatures. In fact 
the greatest temperature experienced at a given speed and torque 

with 100% gasoline and never more than 100°F greater. One note of 
caution should be interjected however, in that these tests all 
took place substantially below full power and temperatures could 
exceed safe values if the load was increased. Despite the general 
trend of increasing temperature with increasing hydrogen propor- 
tion of fuel, there were many small deviations from this trend. 
These deviations were probably caused by slight deviations from 
the desired fuel-air ratio, which in turn caused these deviations 
in the exhaust gas temperature. 

Brake specific fuel consumption, shown in figures 19, 20 
and 21 decreased as the proportion of hydrogen in the fuel increas- 
ed. The more obvious reason for this was the high heat content 
per pound of hydrogen. Whether this gain in BSFC would be enough' 
to offset the volume disadvantage of hydrogen cannot be determined 
by this study, but in the author's opinion, in light of the 
studies discussed in the literature review, it would not. As 
an. example, it can be generally said that is BSFC at 40% gasoline 
is just a little over half that of 100% gasoline. However, 




Engine Speed (rpm) 

Brake Specific Fuel Consumption at 21.7 ft-lbf 
Torque as a Function of Engine Speed and Per Cent 
Gasoline 




Engine Spe 
Fuel Consumf 




Engine Speed (rpm) 



43.4 ft-lbf 



6 4 

using data from reference 2 it would also take a little more than 
double the volume and also a little over twice the weight (if 
the hydrogen was stored cryogen ical ly ) to store the hydrogen and 
gasoline than it would take to store the gasoline if the engine 
was run on 100% gasoline. 

Before leaving the subject of BSFC one trend that in general 
applies to IC engines that was in evidence here will be noted. 
That was the reduction in BSFC which occured when the load was 
increased for a given speed. This was due to the relative cons- 
tancy (for a given speed) of the power consumed by internal fric- 
tion losses. 

In the area of thermal efficiency a general decline as engine 
speed increases can be seen in figures 22, 23 and 24regardless 
of the fuel used. This is due to an increase in friction losses 
with speed. In figure 22 which illustrates the thermal efficiency 
at 21.7 ft-lbf, the 80% gasoline data would make this seem to be 
the optimum ratio. The data is a bit more difficult to interpret 
for the other torques, but the 80% mixture seems to perform 
consistently well. The 60% and 50% curves tended to fall a little 
below the 80% figure, but not necessarily in that order, and there 
tended to be more crossovers with the 50% and 60% mixtures. The 
40% gasoline mixture performed well at the lower torque, but at 
the higher torques often exhibited the lowest thermal efficiency. 
This may reflect the difficulty that was encountered at this 
mixture, in providing optimum spark advance without preignition. 
This will be discussed further in the spark timing section. 




Engine Speed (rpm) 
ncy at 21.7 ft-lbf Ti 




Engine Speed (rpm) 
ency at 28.9 ft-lbf Torque as a Functic 




Engine Speed (rpm) 



Figure 24 Thi 



rformance of the 100% gasoline mixture was 
is may be explained, in part at least, by < 
ficiency curves for the 100°' gasoline mixti 






lal effic 



"hyp; 



shape 



soline curves for the 1005; gasoline mixture. The low thermal 
'ficiency of the 100°; gasoline mixture above 2500 rpm then 

■ovided by the KIM - 1 control system. 

Figures 25, 26, and 27 show the spark advance curves for 
.7 ft-lbf, 28.9 ft-lbf and 43.4 ft-lbf torque in that order. 

s increased was marked. This in general was due to the high 
ame speed of hydrogen. However, the knock limited spark advance 
iints for 40% hydrogen at 28.9 ft-lbf and 405; hydrogen at 
.4 ft-lbf demonstrate the preignition problems enocuntered with 
drogen. As hydrogen proportion and load were increased it 
came more difficult to operate the engine without preignition 

backfires. It became clear that if a high hydrogen propor- 
on is used to operate an engine under heavy load, some measure, 

addition to decreased spark advance, is needed to control 
ckfires and preignition. In fact, stable operation simply 
uld not be obtained at some points because of preignition and/ 
■ backfiring. This is illustrated by the absence of data 
iints at 40%, 505; and 605; gasoline and 1500 rpm and 40% gaso- 
ne at 4000 rpm at 43.4 ft-lbf. The difficulties encountered 




ine Speed (rpm) 

at 21.7 ft-lbf Torqui 




Engine Speed (rpm) 



71 
at 4000 rpm and 43.4 ft-lbf and 403! gasoline were believed to ha< 
resulted from insufficient hydrogen flow due to an undersized 
line from the regulator to the convertor, rather than problems 
inherent with using hydrogen. It was observed that to maintain 
hydrogen flow at 4000 rpm and high torque the regulator pressure 
had to be continually increased in order to maintain sufficient 
hydrogen flow as the hydrogen proportion increased. Because of 
this it was concluded that even with increased pressure sufficiei 
flow could not be maintained at the 405^ gasoline condition and 
a lean mixture resulted, which in turn, led to incessant back- 
fires. In observing the graphs a legitimate question arises: 
Why does knock limited spark advance (indicating preignition) 
occured at some rpm values of a given mixture and not others, 
especially when knock limited spark advance occurs above and 
below some rpm values where it does not? The answer to this 
question is that although it can be said that detonation is more 

dent upon many other variables. Humidity, for instance, is an im- 
portant variable. High humidity will tend to suppress detonatior 
Also detonation can be caused by "hot spots" on the surface of 
the combustion chamber. These hot spots can be caused by such 
things as casting imperfections or combustion deposits. These 
combustion deposits have a certain randomness associated with 

ignition was encountered one day and not the next under the same 
mixture and output conditions. The above mentioned deposits 
constitute one disadvantage of hydrogen-gasoline mixtures. As 



71' 



long as gasoline is burned, the deposits will occur, and as long 
as hydrogen is used as a large proportion of the fuel (502! or 
60%) detonation problems are bound to exist. If 1002 gasoline 
is used the effects of the deposits are minimized, while if 1002 

One curious situation can be seen in the plots, that is the 
optimum timing decreased after 3500 rpm for 60, 50, and 40% 
gasoline. In usual gasoline operation it should increase or 
stay constant. Perhaps at 4000 rpm there was some turbulence 
effect that increased the flame speed of the above hydrogen- 
gasoline mixtures, because of the low thermal energy required to 
ignite hydrogen, while not having an effect on the 80% and 
100% gasoline mixtures. One final observation was made, one that 
would seem to contradict a statement made by Lynch (10) that 
"we (should) stop thinking of backfires as a positive indication 
of preignition". It was noted in this study that significant 
preignition was often followed by a backfire. This is not meant 
to say that the idea put forward by Lynch, that is raising the 
compression actually prevents backfi ring, was incorrect, as this 
was not attempted in this study. It is instead meant as a note 
to future researchers, that for this engine, as it now exists, 
preignition can be interpreted as a warning of imminent back- 



Chapter VI 
Summary and Cone' 



injected 96.6 cu-in, horizontally opposed, air-cooled Volkswagen 
engine were conducted. Tests were conducted at engine torques 
of 21.7, 28.9 and 43.4 ft-lbf with fuel that consisted of a mix- 
ture of gasoline and hydrogen. The gasoline-hydrogen mixtures 
that were used were: 100% gasoline, 80S gasoline-20% hydrogen, 
60% gasoline-40% h'.drogen, 50% gasoline-50% hydrogen, 40% gasoline- 
60% hydrogen. These tests were conducted at engine speeds of 
from 1500 rpm to 4000 rpm in 500 rpm increments. The air-gasoline 
ratio was controlled by a KIM 1 microprocessor and associated 
hardware. The spark advance was set manually by the best torque 
procedure for tests using 100% gasoline. For tests using gasoline- 
hydrogen mixtures the hydrogen mixture and the spark advance 

was introduced into the intake stream through a modified propane 
fuel system and carburetor. 

The results or this testing showed that: 

1. Although its performance could have been improved 
the KIM 1 and associated hardware provided satisfac- 
tory control of the air-gasoline ratio. 

2. The lean best torque, and best torque procedures 
provided satisfactory control of spark timing and air- 

74 



manifold > 



in genei 



proportion of hydrogen in the fuel increased. In 
addition a few trends, not usually found in spark 
ignition IC engines, were found and were attribute, 
to inlet dynamics. 



4. Volumetric efficiency, 
proportion of hydrogen 



n general , 
n the fuel 
ced in voli 



! hydrogei 



5. No dangerously high temperatures were encom 
while operating under the conditions of this 
although temperatures rose slightly i 
proportion of the fuel increased. 

6. The brake specific fuel consumption decreased as the 

BSFC curves are viewed in light of thermal efficiency 
it would appear that this trend, for the most part, 

for light loads, the 80% gasoline mixture seemed to 
generally produce the best thermal efficiency. This 



however, caution is urged because lean operation \ 
not intended here and usually was in the previous 

As the proportion of hydrogen was increased it wa; 
necessary to retard the spark timing in order to r 
tain optimum spark advance or, in some cases, to r 



For high torques and high hydrogen fuel proportions 
it was difficult to operate the engine without pre- 
ignition or backfires. 



If a study was then undertaken to repeat the tests found in this 
study on the engine with water injection, it might prove to be 

study. Another promising modification, 
effects on thermal efficiency, would 
ession ratio as suggested by Lynch (10). 
s, the performance of the gasoline 



aluable adjunct to ■ 
light of its benefii 



control s 

of 3000 rpm and abi 



uld I 



ed, 



eng-: : 



•srle 



at ■ 



iwer tests. There is nothing wrong with partial power tests, 
it alone, they can only provide a partial picture of engine 
rformance. 

If the existing equipment is to be used two suggestions to 

to replace the line from the hydrogen tank regulator to the 
nvertor with a line of larger diameter. This recommendation 



77 



7S 



rpm, torque, and hydrogen proportion. Secondly, it is recom- 
mended that the manual engine controls (throttle, hydrogen 
mixture control, etc.) be moved out of the plane that the engine 
is in. This would help prevent injury if the engine did happen 
to fail catastrophically, and would also provide a degree of peace 
of mind to the operator. This could be easily accomplished by 
lengthening control cables and wiring and moving the controls 
to the front or rear of the engine, rather than the present 
location to the side of the engine. 



ledings , pp. 997-1002. 



2. Edeskuty, F. J. , and Ste\ 
Transportation," Mi 
pp. 22-28. 



ngs, Roger E., and Lynch, Frank E., Performance and 
Nitric Oxide Control Parameters of the Hydrogen 
Engine , Billings Energy Corporation Pub. No. 73002, 



'd, W. A., Moynihan, P. I., and Rupe, J. H., New 
Potentials fo_r Conven tional Aircraft When Poured 
by Hy droge'n - EnricFed Gasoline , SAE Pub. No. 760469', 
Warrendale, 1976. 

nical Engineering , 

8. de Boer, P. C. T., et al . , ,! An Analytical and Experinental 

Study of the Performance and Emissions of a Hydrogen 
Fueled Reci procatino Engine." 1974 Intersociety 
Energy Conversion Conference Proceedings , pp. 479-486. 

9. Wooley, Ronald L., and Hendriksen, D. L., Water Induction 

in Hydrogen Powered I C Engines , Billings Energy 
Corporation Pub. No. 76004, Provo, 1976. 



Corporation Pub. No. 74001," 



Wolley, Ronald L . , and, Germane, G. V. Dynamic Tests o1 
Hydrogen - Powered I C Engines , Billings Energy 
Corporation Pub. No. 76002, Provo, 1976. 



3. Chirivilla, J. E. 



■an, SAE Pub. No. 770488, Warrendale, 1977. 



jAE~Pub. No. 740T1f 
Turnquist, R. 0., Private 
Bulletin 568-800-LM Open 



mdale, 1974. 






7. Robinson, Jeff, 



Clymer, Los Angeles, Cal . , 1972. 

Williams, W., "Operational Characterisi 
Combustion Engine Using Mixtures 



- Nijad, F., "Design and Testing of a Microcom- 
ter Air-Fuel Ratio, Ignition Timing System, for 

Electronically Fuel Injected Internal Combustion 
qine" (unpublished masters thesis, Kansas State 
iversity, 1978). 



21. "800" Syj 



struction Manual , I 



'ton, Ohio, 1973." 



n, CRC Press, Cleveland, 1976 



onic Corporation, 



Chemistry and Ph.ys" 



26. "Standards, Definitions, Terms and Test Codes for Centri- 

fugal, Axial and Propeller Fans," Bulletin No, 110, 

2nd edition, National Association of Fan Manufacturers 
Inc. , Detroit, 1952. 

27. Obert, Edward F., editor. Internal Combustion Engines and 

Air Pollution , Intext Educational Publishers, New 
York, 1973. 

28. Ball, H. D., Private Communication. 

29. Schneck, Gary, "Design, Implementation, and Testing of a 

Real - Time Microcomputer Air - Fuel Ratio and Speed 
Controller for an Electronically Fuel Injected 
Internal Combustion Engine," (unpublished masters 
thesis, Kansas State University, 1976). 

duction to Enqineerin; 



Uncertainty Analysis 

The uncertainty in each of the performance parameters 
will be calculated with the suggested equations of Sprague and 
Nash (30). For a variable which is a function of various 
independently measured values: 

h = J f (7p y 2 . y 3 >- ■ -yj- ' 

The uncertainty in H is: 



where S n is defined ; 

S = 3f 



f(yj. y 2 •■• y n ) 



nd where X n is the uncertainty in the n ' th measured value. 

If a portion of the measured values are not independent, 
s would be the case if they were measured with the same 
nstrument, then the equation for the uncertainty is: 

H =/ (Si ^ + S 2 2 I ... Si X,) 2 + S? +1 A^ + 1 + S? + z X< + 2 ...sl xl 

(18) 
ihere the values 1 through i are dependent measurements and 
■alues 1+1 through n are independent measurements. 

For the calculations presented here, X n will be in per 
:ent of reading wherever possible. The uncertainties will 



be calculated using the smallest measured values in order to 
find the largest uncertainties encountered. Also, manufacturer' 
literature was not available for some of the instruments used. 
In these cases, resolution and linearity uncertainties will 
both be assumed equal to one-half of the smallest scale division 
of the particular instrument. 

Thermal Efficiency 

The thermal efficiency calculation was the end calculation 
in a long series of measurements and calculations. The 
uncertainties in the measurements will be found first, then 
the uncertainties in the intermediate calculations will be 
found, and from these uncertainties, the uncertainty in thermal 
efficiency will be found. 

The Daytronic modular instrument system manual listed 
the accuracies of the various modules as .05 per cent of full 
scale for the torque from the strain guage conditioner amplifier 
.05 per cent of scale for the speed output derived from the 
frequency-to-voltage convertor and a .02 per cent ± one digit 
accuracy associated with the display of these quantities. 

The .05 per cent of full scale for the torque can be 
converted to per cent of smallest reading as follows by 
knowing full scale is 150 ft-lb. 

*Torque-/ <* 2 >Llne.r1ty + <* 2 >;ccur.cy of display + (Resolution 
*Torque=y (.0005)^ + (.0002) 2 + (-Uj* = .086% 



» (.00086) (150) = .129 ft-lb » : ^ a = .594% 

Since full scale of the engine speed was 5,000 rpm, the 

as follows: 

A f!P« J^ A 'Linearity l 'Accuracy of Display + u 'Resolutioi 

X RPf] =/(.O0O5) 2 + (.0002) 2 + / 5 y ~ = .114% = (.0014) (5000) ■ 
v (5000J 



From equation three, it can be seen that the sensitivity 



Output = J (- 0038 ) 2 + (-00594) 



Output 



.705: 



The manual for the Datametrics 800-LM hydrogen flow meter 
lists the accuracy of the system as 2% of reading or .025 SCFM 
whichever is worse. The smallest flow reading encountered 
was .065 SCFM. This is near the lower end of the smallest scale 
and was assumed to be the worst case. Full scale of the 
smallest scale is .5 SCFM. The smallest division is .005 SCFM. 
In this case .025 SCFM is worse than 2% of reading. 



'Hydrogen Consumption =/ (*™ f + (^"5]' 



5.02% 

5.02% x .5 = .0251 SCFM 



The Beckman Counter instruction book lists the accuracy 
of the counter as .3% ± 1 count. 

'■Counter 'J (-003) 2 + ( y- ^ ) 2 

Counter = ' Z% 

Another error component in the timing of the fuel flow 
was that due to the scales, counter trigger switch, and related 
hardware. This error component was the subject of a statisti- 
cal analysis carried out by Mr. Gary Schneck in the uncertainty 
analysis appendix of his masters thesis (29). The study con- 
cluded that the value of this error was 2.9%. The total 
uncertainty in timing the gasoline flow was: 

timing of Fuel flow =/ (- 003 ) 2 + (-0290) 2 



^Timing of Fuel Fli 



2.92;: 






be measured. This measurement was done using a Sartorius 
Model 2253-AL Balance. The uncertainty in this measuremei 
is calculated as: 



The sensitivities of mass and timing with respect to 

Gasoline Consumption "/ (-00123) 2 = (.0292) z 

= 2.92% 

It can be seen from equation six that the sensitivity of 
power output with respect to thermal efficiency is 1. Finding 

sumption and gasoline consumption is a bit more complicated: 

iEiti / x 

8 Gasoline /Gasoline } 

S Gasoline = — Consumption UonsumptionJ 

Consumption Power Output x 2545.1 



f Gasoline \ (19000) +7 Hydrogen \ (51623) 
(consumption) UonsumptionJ 

( Gasoline^ 

: UonsumptionJ (19000) 

r Gasoline ~s ( 1 9000) +7 Hydrogen \(51623) 
UonsumptionJ (consumption] 



f Hydrogen "N 

, = UonsumptionJ (51623) 

■ion ( Gasoline \ (19000) +/ hydrogen ^ ( 51 623) 
UonsumptionJ UonsumptionJ 



8 7 

Now substituting values from the test used to calculate the 
uncertainty in the hydrogen flowmeter, that is the first test 
at 2,000 rpm, 43.4 ft-lbs and 80% gasoline, it was found that: 

Sa.« n n„. ■ -952 



finally: 

^ y (SZX!J> S5!lSia?1on + (S ** Z teS - Sl.n + ^^^O 

A n =/ (.952) z (.0292)^ + (.048)^ ( . 387 ) ^ + (.00705) 2 

l n « 3.417% 



From equation 4, the sensitivities of gasoline consumption, 
hydrogen consumption, and power output with respect to brake 
specific fuel consumption can be found. 



^Sasol 



Consumption (' c ^°^^ on ) + fc,nsum°?1on) 

Power Output 

Hydrogen Consumption 

Hydrogen = Power Output 

Consumption / Gasoline W Hydrogen \ 
( ConsumptionJ (consumotionJ 



. (cS 


5 o 1 i n e 


: A / Hydrogen \ 
onJ+ Iconsumption; 




Power 


■ Consumption 


fcU 


f.nlin. 
: -:■; 


. -> / Hydrogen \ 
on)+ (consumption] 



Again using data from the first test at 2,000 rpm, 43.4 ft-lbf 



-/ (S 2 * 2 ) + (S 2 A 2 ) + (S 2 A2) 

V Output con 1 " "?- Gasoline. 

=/ (.00705) 2 + (.018) 2 (.387) 2 + ( . 982) 2 (.0292) 2 

= 3.032 



uncertainty in volumetric efficiency, the uncertainty in a' 
mass flow rate and theoretical maximum air mass flow rate 

uncertainty in density, volumetric air flow rate (CFM) and 



wet bulb' T dry bulb' atmospheric p 



linty ■ 



p across the flow nozzle, and measured pressure 
the flow nozzle. 

e the density equation more mathematically manage- 
be exDanded to the form: 



Density = 1.33 



.00019 Atmospheric - .00019 /']wetbulb\ ,'tmospheric 

Pressure Udry bulb j Pressure (15) 

tainty of .5°F. The smallest value of T d bulb was 



>Tdry bulb -/ <> 2 >L1near1t: 
V fef) + (to) 



« b.,1 -J " ! >u„..r- 

°7(5F(5 



ity { ; Resolut- 



<■■■■ 



The uncertainty in the barometric pressure is also to 
be calculated with the linearity and resolution uncertainties 
equal to 1/2 of the smallest scale division on the barometer. 
This smallest division was .01 in-Hg and the smallest pressun 
reading was 28.49 in-Hg. 

The uncertainty in atmospheric pressure is: 

^Atmospheric =/ ( * 2 ) Lineari ty + ( x2 ) Resol ution 
Pressure * 

= I .005 \ 2 + ( .005 \ 2 
I 28. 49 j ^ 28 . 49 J 

= .0248% 

Now after finding the sensitivities of atmospheric 

can be computed. 

3 Density 
? Atmospheric (Atmospheric Pressure) 



3 Atrao. 


L 


T dry bulb 




Atmo. 

00019 Press 




.00019('Twet b 


A- 

ulbV, 




V T dry b 


UlbJ 



dry bulb 

tmo. Atmo. 



1.33 Press. - 1.03 T we t bulb + .00019 Rn 
dry bulb dry bulb 



1 9 Awet bulb \ 

(j dry bulbJAtmo 



1.33 + .00019 - .00019 T wet bulb 
T drv bulb T drv bulb 



(Tdry bulb^Atmo. \ 



.00019 T W et bull 



Vapor Press, 
of Water @ 
1.03 T we t bulb + .00019 



019/ T wet bul b 'A Atmo. 
Vdry bulb/ Press - 



T dry bulb T d 



019/ T we t bulb A , Atnn 
Ijdry bulb) Pres 



1.33 Press. - 1.03 T wet bu1b + .00019 Pr< 
T dry bulb T dry bulb 



The values of T dry bulb , T wet bulb and the vapor pressure 
of water @ T wet bulb are taken from a test run, judged represen- 
tative of the tests in general. The particular test chosen 
was the first test run at the conditions of 3500 rpm, 21.7 ft-lbf 



'dry bull 



' 93°F 



■ 63°F 



Vapor Pressure of 

Water @ T wet bulb = .28496 



le of 28.9 in-Hg was the mean of the atmosphe' 
: used in calculation of the sensitivities. I 
igs are substituted into the sensitivity equa 
: is: 



T b lb = --UUyUJ 
S Tdry bulb ' -- 987 

density =/ <^ 2 ) Atm0 . * (sV) T bulb * (S*X z ) Twet bu1b 
J Press. 

= / ( 1. 01 ) 2 (. 000248 ) 2 + (-. 987) 2 ( .0179) 2 + (-. 00903) 2 { . 01644) 2 

= 1.77% 

From the uncertainty, the uncertainty in the theoretical 
maximum air mass flow rate can be found. 



^Theoretical "/ (S A >RPM + < s x ^Density 
Mass m now 

^Theoretical = / (U 2 ^ 0038 ) 2 + (D 2 (.0177) 2 

Maximum Air v 



= 1.812 
To obtain the uncertainty in the air mass flow rate, the 

metric air flow must first be found. First however 



) Across Flow Nozzle) (.075) 
Density 



assumed equal to 1/2 of the smallest scale division which 
.0005 in-H 2 0. 

The uncertainty in the measured pressure drop is then: 



= /(* 2 >, 



(* 



'.0005 ^ + (.ooos y 



ity ■ 1 

e uncertainty in thi 



:andard "/ ^ 'Measured <^W 
msity v Pressure 
■essure Drop 



= / (.0141)2 + (.0177)2 

= 2.26% 

In order to calculate the uncertainty in CFM the sensiti- 
vity of standard density pressure drop across the flow nozzle 
in equation 9 must be known. 

S ri , , = a CFM /Standard Density] 

Standard Density standard Densitv (Pressure Drop ) 
Pressure Drop Pressure Drop 



The uncertainty for volumetric air flow (CFM) may now be foum 



*CFM -J t-5) 2 (-0226) 2 
A CFM = 1.13% 

*Air =y(S^.^) CFM+ (S'x<) Density 



=J ( . 0113) 2 + (.0177) 2 

= 2.1% 



Continuing on, the sensitivities of air mass flow and theor< 
tical air mass flow in equation 12 are 1 and -1 respectively 



■ ■/ (S 2 A 2 )Air Mass + < S 2 * 2 ) Theoreti , 

^ Flow Rate Air Mass 

Flow Rati 

y (.021) 2 + ( -0181) 2 



The next parameter that the uncertainty will compu' 
s air-fuel ratio. From equation 13: 



(Air Mass Flow Rate) (Gasoline Consumption) 



Consumption f Gasoline \ + ( Hydrogen jl 2 

[^Consumption) (consumptionjj 



/ Gasoline A +( Hydrogen ^ 
^Consumption] Vponsumptionj 



7 Gasoline =\ + 7 Hydrogen ^ 
(.Consumption) (.Consumption) 



Consumption / G. 



Hydrogen Consumption 



/ Gasoline "\ +/ Hydrogen 1 
(.Consumption] (Consumption J 



le data of the first test at 2,000 rpm, 43.4 ft-lbf 
; gasoline: 



Ur-fu.l «/ (S 2 A 2 ) Air Mass ♦ (S 2 A 2 ) Gasoline + (sV) Hydroge , 
latio v Flow Ratio Consumption Consump' 

Hr-fuel =/ ( - 021) 2 + (.9S2) 2 (-0292) 2 + ( . 018) 2 (.387) 2 



■ Gasoline Raj 



; can be seen from equation 14 that the sensitive 

lass flow rate and gasoline consumption with respt 

gasoline ratio were 1 and -1 respectfully. So: 

niino = / (- 02 1) 2 + (-0292)^ 



As explained in an earlier chapter, the manifold vacui 
jas read from a vertical mercury manometer. The uncertaint' 
issociated with this reading consist of linearity and resoli 
:ion uncertainties only. The smallest scale division of thi 
lanometer was .1 in-Hg. The smallest recorded value of int. 
lanifold pressure was 4.5 in-Hg. The uncertainty in the 
•ecorded values of manifold pressure was: 

•Intake Pressure »/ (^Linearity + (^Resolution 



=/ (.05) 2 + (.05) z = .071 in-Hg 

= .071 in-Hg = 1.57% 

4.5 

Exhaust Temperature 

Several uncertainties are associated with the recorded 
exhaust temperature. These are the uncertainty in temperatui 
sensed by the thermocouple, amounting to 4°F, a linearity uiv 
certainty in the millivolt potentiometer of .03% of reading 
plus 3 P V and a resolution uncertainty of .00025 uV. The 
smallest temperature read was 353°F which corresponds to a 
millivolt output of 7.26. The value of the uncertainty in 



Exhaust ;/ (^Thermocouple + (^'linearity + (^) Reso" 



=// 4 ) Z + (.0003)^ + / .3 \ 2 + .0023 ; 
v' 1353/ W.23/ T72T 



Spark Adv; 



As stated in an earlier chapter the spark advance was 
read from a degree wheel mounted on the cooling fan and 
illuminated with a stroboscopic timing light. The uncertainty 
associated with this reading consisted of linearity and resolu- 
tion uncertainties. The error is independent of the number 
of degrees advance, and because it is so, the error is stated 
in the number of degrees rather than per cent. The smallest 
division on the degree wheel was 2 degrees. 



A Sp, 



rk =/ (^Linearity + ^ > Resol utio 



^Spark -J (I) 2 + (I) 2 



APPENDIX ! 
HP-29C Data Reduci 



3f fractional fom 
c of fractional 



Result: Gasoline Consumpti 



Result: Hydrogen Consumption (lbm/hr) 



rake Specific Fuel Consumption (lbm/hp-hr) 



Result: Thermal Efficiency (%) 



;an Effective Pressure (lb/ii/) 



STO Atmospheric pressure (in-Hg) 
STO 1 Pressure of saturated water 

vapor @ wet bulb temperature 

(lb/in 2 ) 
STO 2 Dry bulb temperature (degrees 
STO 3 Wet bulb temperature (degrees 
STO 4 Measured pressure drop across 

air flow nozzle (in-H 2 0) 
STO 5 RPM 
STO 6 Consumed mass of gasoline 

(lbm/hr) 
STO 7 Consumed mass of H2 (lbm/hr) 



1500 RPM 
21.7 ft-lbf 
100% gasoli 
6.198 hp 
33.874 PSI BMEP 



1500 
21.7 

4 0'. 


RPM 
ft- 

3 SO 


lbf 


1500 RPM 
28.9 ft-lbf 
100% gasoli 
8.254 hp 
45.113 PSI B 


1500 
2 o . 9 
80'-: 


R?M 
ft- 

aso 


bf 
in 


150C 
2 8.9 
60% 


RPM 
ft- 

a s o 


bf 
Inn 


1500 
23.9 


RPM 
ft- 


bf 



4.739 
4.651 
4.635 



3.640 

3.545 
3.654 



5.239 
5'. 178 
5.242 



2.576 
2.589 
2.590 







Jjuu 


Ignition 
Timing 


n 


A/F 


Air 




Gasoline 








in-Hg 


°BTDC 




ratio 


ratio 


RP.M 


1500 RPM 


1 


14.95 


25 


35.1 


13.7 


13.7 


Torque 


21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


15.05 


25 


34.5 


13.7 


13.7 


% fuel 


100% gasoline 


3 


15.05 


25 


34.2 


13.6 


13.6 




6.198 hp 


Ave 


15.0 


25 


34.6 


13.7 


13.7 




33.874 PSI BMEP 
















1500 RPM 


1 


14.5 


18 


34.5 


15.4 


16.8 




21.7 ft-lbf 
80S gasoline 


2 
3 
Avg 


14.5 
14.5 
14.5 


18 
13 


34.5 
34.5 
34.5 


15.7 
15.3 
15.5 


17.3 
16.8 
17.0 




1500 RPM 
21.7 ft-lbf 


1 
2 


13.65 
13.7 


15 
15 


35.3 
35.3 


17.2 
17.6 


21.4 
22.1 




60S gasoline 


3 
Avg 


13.65 
13.65 


15 
15 


35.3 
35.3 


17.5 
17.4 


21.9 
21.8 




1500 RPM 


1 


13.8 


10 


33.8 


18.9 


26.0 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


13.6 


10 


34.8 


19.4 


26.7 




50% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


13.6 
13.5 


10 
10 


34.8 
34.5 


19.5 
19.3 


27.0 
26.6 




1500 RPM 


1 


13.2 


4 


34.8 


22.8 


40.9 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


13.2 


4 


34.8 


21.8 


38.2 




40% gasoline 


3 


13.25 


4 


33.1 


21.2 


37.4 






Avg 


13.2 


4 


34.2 


21.9 


38.8 


RPM 
Torque 


1500 RPM 
28.9 ft-lbf 


1 
2 


12.7 
12.65 


21 

20 


41.0 
41.0 


14.5 
14.7 


14.5 
14.7 


% fuel 


100% gasoline 


3 


12.7 


20 


41.0 


14.5 


14.5 




8.254 hp 


Avg 


12.7 


20 


41.0 


14.6 


14.6 




45.113 PSI BMEP 
















1500 RPM 


l 


12.15 


18 


41.7 


16.2 


18.0 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


12.1 


18 


41.7 


15.8 


17.5 




80% gasoline 


3 

Ave 


12t95-- 
12.1 


— 18- 


41.7 


16.0 


17.8 




1500 RPM 


1 


11.25 


15 


41.5 


18.0 


22.5 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


11.2 


15 


41.5 


17.8 


22.1 




60S gasoline 


3 

Avg 


11.25 
11.25 


15 
15 


41.5 
41.5 


18.0 


22.6 
22.4 




1500 RPM 


1 


10.95 


8 


40.6 


19.3 


27.6 




28.9 ft-lbf 




11 




40.6 


19.2 


27.5 




50% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


11.1 

11.0 


! 


4 0.6 
40.6 


19.2 
19.2 


27.5 
27.5 









Gasoline 


Hydroqen 












Consump- 


Consump- 


BSFC 




Exhaust 






tion 




lbm 


n th 










lbm/hr 


lbm/hr 


hp-hr 




°F 




1500 RPM 


1 


1.965 


1.493 


.419 


18.4 


447 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


2.034 


1.493 


.427 


18.2 


456 




40% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


1.960 


1.493 


.418' 

.421 


18! 3 


460 
454 




1500 RPM 


1 


6.474 





.522 


25.7 


546 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


6.548 





.528 


25.4 


539 




100% gasoline 


3 


6.422 





.518 


25.9 


546 




12.395 hp 


Avg 






.523 


25.7 


544 




67.747 PSI BMEP 
















1500 RPM 


1 


5.129 


.728 


.473 


23.4 


548 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


4.682 


.728 


.436 


24.9 


543 




80% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


5.023 


.716 


.463 
.457 


23.8 
24.0 


538 
543 




1500 RPM 
















43.3 ft-lbf 
















60% gasoline 
















1500 RPM 
















43.4 ft-lbf 
















50% gasoline 
















1500 RPM 
















43.4 ft-lbf 
















40% gasoline 














RPM 


2000 RPM 


1 


6.352 





.769 


17.4 


442 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


6.305 





.763 


17.6 


449 


% fuel 


100% gasoline 


3 


6.327 





.766 


17.5 


442 




8.263 hp 


Avg 






.766 


17.5 


442 




33.874 PSI BMEP 
















2000 RPM 


1 


4.555 


.478 


.609 


18.9 


436 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


4.496 


.478 


.602 


19.1 


435 




80% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


4.574 


.478 


.611 
.607 


18.9 
19.0 


436 
436 




2000 RPM 


I 


3.740' 


.896 


.561 


17.9 


438 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


3.581 


.896 


.542 


18.4 


439 




60% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


3.626 


.896 


.547 
.550 


18.3 
18.2 


439 
439 









Intake 


Ignition 


nv 


A/F 


Air 




Gasoline 








in-Hg 


o BTDC 




ratio 






1500 RPM 


1 


9.4 


*6°ATDC 


41.4 


20.9 


36.9 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


9.35 


*6°ATDC 


41.4 


20.5 


35.6 




40% gasoline 


3 


9.35 


*6°ATDC 


41.4 


21.0 


37.0 






Avg 


9.35 


*6°ATDC 


41.4 


20.8 


36.5 




1500 RPM 


1 


7.7 


20 


54.8 


15.6 


15.6 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


7.9 


19 


55.0 


15.5 


15.5 




100% gasoline 


3 


7.7 


20 


54.9 


15.8 


15.8 




12.395 hp 


Ave 




20 


54.9 


15.6 


15.6 




67.747 PSI BMEP 
















1500 RPM 


1 


6.5 


12 


55. 1 


16.5 


18.8 




43.4 ft- 1 bf 


2 


6.5 


13 


5 5.1 


17.8 


20.6 




802 gasoline 


3 


6.65 


13 


55.1 


16.8 


19.2 






Ave 


6.55 


13 


55.1 


17.0 


19.5 




1500 RPM 
















43.4 ft-lbf 
















60% gasoline 
















1500 RPM 
















43.4 ft-lbf 
















50% gasoline 
















1500 RPM 
















43.4 ft-lbf 
















40% gasoline 














RPM 


2000 RPM 


1 


15.55 


31 


36.6 


14.1 


14.1 


Torque 


21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


1 5 . 6 


30 


36.3 


14.1 


14.1 


% fuel 


100% gasoline 


3 


15.55 


31 


36.6 


14.2 


14.2 




8.263 hp 




15.55 


31 


36.5 


14.1 


14. 1 




33.874 PSI BMEP 
















2000 RPM 


1 


15.1 


23 


36.3 


16.6 


18.3 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


15.1 


23 


36.3 


16.8 


18.6 




80% gasoline 


3 


15.1 


23 


36.1 


16.7 


18.5 






Avg 


15.1 


23 


36.2 


16.7 


18.5 




2000 RPM 


1 


14.4 


16 


35.4 


17.6 


21.8 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


14.4 


16 


35.6 


18.3 


22.9 




60% gasoline 


3 


14.35 


16 


35.6 


18.1 


22.6 






Avg 


14.4 


16 


35.5 


18.0 


22.4 



2000 RPM 
21.7 ft-lbf 
50% gasoline 



2000 RPM 
28.9 ft-lbf 
100% gasoline 
11.005 hp 
45.113 PSI BMEP 



2000 RPM 

9 ft-lb 
60% gasoli 



2. 126 

2.116 
2.226 







intake 


Ignition 
Timing 


N 


A/F 


Ai 






Gasoline 






in-Hq 


°BTDC 




ratio 


ratio 




2000 RPM 


! 


13.2 


12 


35.6 


20.2 


29.8 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


13.3 


13 


35.5 


19.7 


28.9 




502 gasoline 


3 


13.3 


13 


35.5 


19.8 


29.0 






Avg 


13.25 


13 


35.5 


19.9 


29.2 




2000 RPM 


1 


12.95 


9 


34.7 


21.0 


33.6 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


12.95 


9 


34.7 


21.4 


34.8 




40?; gasoline 


3 

Avg 


12.9 
12.95 


9 
9 


35.1 
34.8 


22.4 
21.6 


37.1 
35.2 


RPM 


2000 RPM 


1 


13.85 


28 


41.6 


14.2 


14.2 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


13.75 


28 


41.6 


14.2 


14.2 


% fuel 


100% gasoline 


3 


13.75 


28 


41.6 


14.2 


14.2 




11.005 hp 


Avg 


13.8 


28 


41.6 


14.2 


14.2 




45.113 PSI BMEP 
















2000 RPM 


1 


13.05 


24 


43.4 


15.6 


16.6 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


13.05 


24 


43.4 


15.5 


16 


4 




80% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


13.05 
13.05 


24 
24 


43.1 
43.3 


15.9 
15.7 


16 
16 


9 
6 




2000 RPM 


1 


11.9 


16 


41.5 


18.5 


23 


8 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


11.9 


16 


41.5 


19.0 


24 


5 




60% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


11.85 
11.9 


16 
16 


41.5 
41.5 


18.7 
18.7 


24 
24 



1 




2000 RPM 


1 


11.2 


u 


41.1 


20.4 


29 


6 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


11.25 


11 


41.1 


20.4 


29 


4 




50% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


11.2 
11.2 


11 
11 


41.1 
41.1 


20.3 
20.4 


29 
29 


3 
4 




2000 RPM 


1 


10.85 


8 


39.7 


22.8 


42 


7 




28.9 ft-lbf 
40% gasoline 


2 
3 

Avg 


10.75 
10.85 
10.8 


8 


39.7 
39.7 
39.7 


22.9 
22.3 
22.7 


42 
40 
42 


3 
£ 
1 


RPM 
Torque 


2000 RPM 
43.4 ft-lbf 


1 
2 


9.4 
9.35 


24 
24 


54.8 
54.8 


15.0 
14.9 


15 
14 



9 


% fuel 


100% gasoline 


3 


9.35 


24 


54.7 


14.9 




9 




16.527 hp 




9.35 


24 


54.8 


14.9 


14 






67.747 PSI BMEP 
















2000 RPM 


1 


9.45 


23 


55.3 


14.8 


15.0 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


9.45 


23 


55.3 


14.5 


14.7 




80% gasol ine 


3 


9.45 


23 


55.3 


15.2 


15.5 






Avg 


9.45 


23 


55.3 


14.8 


15 


1 



2000 RPM 

ft-lbf 
40% gasoline 

2500 RPM 

.7 ft-lbf 
100% gasoline 
10.329 hp 
33.874 PSI BMEP 



2500 RPM 
21.7 ft-lb 
40% gasoli 



6.15!! 
6.0S7 
6 .263 



5.571 
5.326 
5.46 6 



5.463 


.931 


5.355 


.943 


5.463 


.931 




.935 


3.981 


1.433 


3.958 


1.433 


3.942 


1.433 



B S 5 C 




l:ir, 
hp-hr 


ith 


.435 


24.7 


.431 


24.9 


.441 


24.5 


.435 


24.7 


.427 


23.0 


.413 


23.6 


.421 


23.3 


.420 


23.3 


.341 


24.8 


.321 


24.4 


.341 


24.8 


.344 


24.7 


.750 


17.9 


.747 


17.9 


.741 


18.1 


.746 


18.0 


.660 


18.8 


.681 


18.2 


.700 


17.8 


.680 


18.3 


.619 


17.3 


.610 


17.5 


.619 


17.3 


.616 


17.4 


.524 


17.6 


.522 


17.6 


.520 


17.7 


.522 


17.6 


.435 


18.0 


.427 


18.2 


.429 


18.2 


.430 


18.1 


.675 


19.9 


.669 


20.0 


.675 


19.8 


.673 


19.9 



2000 RPM 
43.4 ft-lbf 
60% gasoline 

2000 RPM 
43.4 ft-lbf 
50% gasoline 



2500 RPM 
21.7 ft-lb 
100% gasol 
10.329 hp 
33.874 PSI BMEP 



2500 RPM 
21.7 ft-lb- 
50% gasol i 



2 500 
78.9 
80% 


ft- 


bf 

in 


2500 
03.9 
60% 


RPM 
ft- 

aso 


bf 
in 


2000 
28.0 

50% 


Rpy 
ft- 

aso 


Of 

ine 


2500 
00.0 
40% 


ft- 

asc 


bf 
in 


2500 RPM 
43.4 ft-lbf 
100% gasolir 
20.658 hp 
67.747 PSI Bl> 


2 5 00 
43.4 
80% 


RPM 
ft- 

aso 


bf 


0500 


RPfv 





13.4 ft-lbf 



10.501 
10.405 
10.3 



6.221 
6.106 
6.200 



2.448 
2.507 
2.567 



2500 RPM 
28.9 ft-lbf 
602 gasoline 



2500 RPM 
28.9 ft-lt 
40% gasoli 



imited spark advan 



7.95 
7.95 
7.9 5 
7.9b 



3000 RPM 
21.7 ft-lb 
1002 gasol 
12.395 hp 
33.874 PSI 8MEP 



3 J?:? 

21.7 
60% 


RPM 

ft-lbf 

asoline 


3000 
21.7 
50% 


RPM 

ft-lbf 
asoline 


3000 
21.7 
40% 


RPM 

ft-lbf 


3000 RPM 
28.9 ft-lbf 
100% gasoline 
16.508 hp 
45.113 PSI BME 



12.125 
12.282 
12.140 



6.599 

6.7 54 
o.6^3 



4.323 

4.297 
4.303 

13.682 
13.644 
13.605 



7 .333 
7.416 

6.053 
6.3 50 
6 . a 7 



1.512 
1.612 
1.612 

2.C30 
3.030 
2.030 



.332 
.382 

.332 



1.194 
1 .194 
1.194 

1.731 
1.731 
1.731 







Intake 


Timing 




A/F 


Air 




Gasoline 








in-Hg 


°BTDC 






RPM 


3000 RPM 


1 


14.95 


31 


40.8 


11.9 ! 11.9 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


15.0 


31 


40.8 


11.8 




% fuel 


100% gasoline 


3 


15.05 


31 


40.6 


11.9 


11 ! 9 




12.395 hp 


Avg 


15.0 


31 


40.7 


11.9 


11.9 




33.874 PSI BMEP 
















3000 RPM 


1 


15.6 


28 


38.0 


15.6 


16.1 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


15.6 


28 


38.0 


15.2 


15.7 




80% gasoline 


Avg 


15.55 
15.6 


29 
28 


38.0 
38.0 


15.3 
15.4 


15*9 




3000 RPM 


1 


14.25 


23 


37.4 


16.7 


19.7 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


14.25 


23 


37.4 


16.4 


19.2 




6C: gasoline 


3 


14.25 


23 


37.4 


16.6 


19.5 






Avg 


14.25 


23 


37.4 


16.6 


19.5 




3000 RPM 


1 


13.7 


19 


36.5 


17.9 


23.3 




21 7 ft-lbf 


2 


13.65 


19 


36.5 


18.5 


24.1 




50, gasoline 


3 

Avg 


13.65 
13.65 


19 

19 


36.5 
36.5 


18.5 
18.3 


24.2 
23.9 




3000 RPM 


1 


13.05 


13 


36.5 


19.9 


29.3 




21.7 ft-lbf 
40% gasoline 


2 

3 

Avg 


13.0 
13.0 
13.0 


13 
13 

13 


36.5 
36.5 
36.5 


20.0 
20.0 
20.0 


29.5 
29.4 
29.4 


RPM 


3000 RPM 


1 


13.05 


29 


46.8 


12.1 


12.1 


Torque 


28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


13.05 


29 


46.6 


12.1 


12.1 


% fuel 


100% gasoline 


3 


13.00 


29 


46.6 


12.1 


12.1 




16.508 hp 


Avg 


13.05 


29 


46.7 


12.1 


12.1 




45.113 PSI BMEP 
















3000 RPM 


1 


13.7 




43.1 


15.1 


15.6 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


13.8 




43.1 


14.0 


14.5 




80% gasoline 


3 

AVg 


13.7 
13.75 




43.1 
43.1 


14.7 
14.6 


15.2 
15.1 




3000 RPM 


1 


12.65 




42.4 


17.1 


19.8 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


12.65 




42.4 


17.1 


19.9 




60% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


12.65 
12.65 




42.4 
42.4 


17.3 
17.2 


20.1 
19.9 




3000 RPM 


1 


11.95 




41.3 


18.6 


23.9 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


11.95 




41.3 


18.1 


23.2 




50% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


11.95 
11.95 




41.3 
41.3 


18.3 
18.3 


23.4 
23.5 



3000 RPM 

:.9 ft-lbf 
40% gasoline 

3000 RPM 
! 43.4 ft-lbf 
100% gasoline 
24.790 hp 
67.747 PSI BMEP 



3000 RPM 

ft-lb 
60% gasoli 



3000 RPM 

■ ft-lbf 
40% gasoline 

3500 RPM 
i 21.7 ft-lbf 
100% gasoline 
14.461 hp 
33.874 PSI BM! 



Gasoline 
Consump- 

Ibm/hr 


4 


.843 


4 


.950 


15 

14 
14 


.138 

.975 
959 


11 

11 


274 
489 
.417 


8 


626 
727 
526 


7 


154 


7 


254 


5 
6 
5 


741 
055 
891 


14 

14 
14 


474 
672 
754 


10 

10 
10 


729 
838 
503 


8 
8 


571 
662 
596 



'■ . Z 9 Z 
2.090 
2.090~ 



1.851 
: .£51 
1.851 



8.537 
8.557 
8.567 



1.854 
1.85^ 
1.254 



BSFC 




Ibm 


r| th 


hp-hr 


% 


.420 


21.0 


.415 


21.2 


.426 


20.8 


.420 


21.0 


.611 


21.9 


.604 


22.2 


.603 


22.2 


.606 


22.1 


.489 


24.4 


.498 


24.0 


.496 


24.1 


.494 


24.2 


.423 


24.3 


.427 


24.1 


.419 


24.5 


.423 


24.3 


.391 


23.6 


.400 


23.2 


.396 


23.3 


.396 


23.4 


.371 


21.9 


.386 


21.3 


.382 


21.3 


.380 


21.5 


1.001 


13.4 


1.015 


13.2 


1.020 


13.1 


1.012 


13.2 


.765 


16.6 


.773 


16.4 


.750 


16.9 


.763 


16.6 


.679 


16.2 


.686 


16.1 


.681 


16.1 


.682 


16.1 



3000 RPM 
! 43.4 ft-lbf 
100% gasoline 
24.790 hp 
67.747 PSI BMEP 



43.4 ft-lbf 



3500 RPM 
: 21.7 ft-lbf 
100% gasoline 
14.461 hp 
33.874 PSI BMEP 



°ATDC ! 

°ATDC i 

°ATDC i 

°ATDC i 



39.2 

39.: 

39.2 
3 9.3 



A/F 
ratio 


20 
21 

2 
2 

13 

14 
14 
13 

16 

15 
15 


!o 

.7 

8 
.0 


.9 

9 


IF, 
18 

19 
18 
19 
19 

21 

2 
2 
20 


3 
1 
5 
3 

2 

9 

1 
1 

4 

5 
7 
9 


12 
11 
11 
11 



9 
9 
9 


15 
14 
15 

15 




3 



16 

16 


2 




„ 


1 



3500 RPM 
21.7 ft-lbf 
40r» gasoline 



7.228 
7.008 
6.900 



5.365 
5.293 
5.473 

15.609 
15.548 
15.568 



3500 RPM 
43.4 ft-lb- 
100?; gasol- 
28.922 hp 
67.747 PSI BMEP 

3500 RPM 



7.430 
7.647 
7.660 



5.760 
5.667 
6.142 



16.674 
16.848 
16.678 



13.314 
13.136 
13.133 



2.269 
2.269 
2.328 



1.552 
1.552 
1.552 

2.567 
2.567 
2.567 



1.672 
1.672 
1.672 



BSFC 




hFF 


% 


.632 


15.6 


.617 


15.9 


.609 


16.0 


.619 


15.8 


.528 


16.8 


.523 


16.9 


.539 


16.4 


.530 


16.7 


.881 


16.5 


.807 


16.6 


.808 


16.6 


.809 


16.6 


.624 


19.8 


.640 


19.4 


.629 


19.7 


.631 


19.6 


.544 


19.6 


.560 


19.2 


.542 


19.7 


.549 


19.5 


.519 


17.9 


.530 


17.6 


.531 


17.6 


.527 


17.7 


.501 


15.8 


.511 


15.2 


.536 


14.7 


.516 


15.2 


.577 


23.2 


.583 


23.0 


.577 


23.2 


.579 


23.1 


.518 


21.7 


.512 


21.9 


.512 


21.9 


.514 


21.8 









Intake 


Ignition 
Timing 


., 


A/F 


Air 




Gasoline 










°BTDC 


2 








3500 RPM 


1 


13.35 


20 


39.6 


17.2 


21.7 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


13.30 


20 


39.6 


17.6 


22.4 






3 


13.25 


20 


39.6 


17.8 


22.7 






Ave 


13.30 


20 


39.6 


17.5 


22.3 




3500 RPM 


1 


13.25 


15 


37.5 


19.1 


28.3 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


13.15 


15 


37.5 


20.1 


28.7 






3 


13.10 


15 


37.5 


19.5 


27.7 






Avg 


13.15 


15 


37.5 


19.6 


28.2 


RPM 


3500 RPM 


1 


12.8 


32 


48.8 


12.8 


12.8 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


12.8 


32 


48.8 


12.8 


12.8 


2 fuel 


1002 gasoline 


3 


12.75 


32 


48.8 


12.8 


12.8 




19.259 hp 


Avg 


12.8 


32 




12.8 


12.8 




45.113 PSI BMEP 
















3500 RPM 


1 


12.5 


26 


47.6 


15.8 


16.6 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


12.55 


26 


47.3 


15.3 


16.1 




802 gasoline 


3 
Avg 


12.55 
12.55 


26 
26 


47.3 
47.4 


15.6 
15.6 


16.4 
16.4 




3500 RPM 


1 


11.45 


21 


46.8 


17.9 


21.1 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


11.4 


21 


46^8 


17.4 


20.4 




502 gasoline 


3 

Avg 


11.4 
11.4 


21 
21 


46^8 


18.0 
17.8 


21.2 
20.9 




3500 RPM 


1 


10.3 


18 


46.7 


18.4 


24.7 




28.9 ft-ltf 


2 


10.3 


18 


46.7 


18.0 


24.0 




502 gasoline 


3 


10.3 




46.7 


17.9 


24.0 






Avg 


10.3 


18 


46.7 


18.1 


24.2 




33.874 PSI BMEP 
















3500 RPM 


1 


10.4 


15 


45.6 


18.8 


31.4 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


10.3 


14 


45.6 




31 .9 




402 gasoline 


3 
Avg 


10.3 
10.3 


14 


46.1 
45.8 


ll'.l 
18.3 


2S.7 
31.0 


RPM 


3500 RPM 


1 


8.85 


33 


61.7 


15.3 


15.3 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


8.95 


33 


60.7 


14.8 


14.8 


2 fuel 


1002 gasoline 


3 


8.85 


33 


61.1 


15.1 


15.1 




28.922 hp 


Avg 


8.90 


33 


61.2 


15.1 


15.1 




57.747 PSI BMEP 
















3500 RPM 


1 


7.55 


23 


59.7 


15.5 


17.4 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


7.55 


23 


59.9 


15.7 


17.7 




802 gasoline 


3 


7.55 


23 


59.9 


15.7 


17.7 






Avg 


7.55 


23 


59.8 


15.6 


17.6 



3500 RPM 
43.4 ft- 1 I 
60S gasoV 



3500 RPM 
43.4 ft-lbf 
40% gasoline 

4000 RPM 
21.7 ft-lbf 
100% gasoline 
16.527 hp 
33.874 PSI BME 



21.7 
50% 


RP!>' 

ft-lbf 
jasoline 


4 00 
21.7 
40% 


RPM 

ft-lbf 

asoline 


4000 RPM 

28.9 ft-lbf 
100% gasoline 

22.010 hp 
45.113 PSI BME 



12.156 
12.195 
12.276 



7.005 
16.756 
6.799 



3.582 
3.5S2 
3.352 



1.791 
1.791 

1 .791 

2.567 
2.567 
2.507 

2.925 
2.925 

2 .925 



BSFC 




FFFF 


V h 


.424 


23.3 


.415 


23.7 


.430 


23.1 


.423 


23.4 


.415 


23.0 


.425 


22.6 


.415 


23.0 


.418 


22.9 


.369 


23.1 


.379 


22.6 


.384 


22.5 


.377 


22.7 


.979 


13.7 


.968 


13.8 


.986 


13.6 


.978 


13.7 


.777 


15.8 


.779 


15.8 


.784 


15.7 


.780 


15.8 


.688 


15.3 


.694 


15.2 


.696 


15.2 


.693 


15.2 


.647 
.643 


14.7 
14.7 


.637 


14.9 


.642 


14.8 


.557 


15.6 


.558 


15.5 


.561 


15.5 


.559 


15.5 


.773 


17.3 


.761 


17.6 


.763 


17.6 


.766 


17.5 







Intake 


Ignition 
Timing 


s 


A/F 


Ai 


r 




Gasoline 








in-Hq 


°BTDC 










3500 RPM 


1 


7.05 


17 


57.5 


18.6 


23.4 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


7.05 


17 


57.5 


19.0 


24.1 




60% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


7.05 
7.05 


17 

17 


57.5 
57.5 


18.3 
18.6 


23.0 
23.5 




3500 RPM 


1 


6.35 


15 


58.4 


19.2 


25.0 




43.4 ft-lb.f 


2 


6.40 


14 


58.4 


18.7 


24.2 




50% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


6.40 
6.40 


14 


58.4 
58.4 


19.2 

19.0 


25.0 
24.7 




3500 RPM 


I 


5.15 


2* 


59.3 


22.1 


33.4 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


5.15 


2* 


59.3 


21.5 


31.9 




40% gasoline 


3 


5.15 


2* 


59.3 


21.2 


31.4 






Avg 


5.15 


2* 


59.3 


21.6 


32.2 


RPM 


4000 RPM 


1 


14.15 


38 


44.5 


12.8 


12.8 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


14.15 


38 


44.5 


12.9 


12.9 




100% gasoline 


3 


14.15 


38 


44.5 


12.7 


12.7 




16.527 hp 


Avg 




38 


44.5 


12.8 


12.8 




33.874 PSI BMEP 
















4000 RPM 


1 


14.2 


28 


42.5 


15.2 


16.1 




21.7 ft-lbf 
80% gasoline 


2 
3 

Avg 


14.2 
14.2 
14.2 


28 
28 
28 


42.5 
42.5 
42.5 


15.2 
15.1 
15.2 


16 
15 
16 



9 





4000 RPM 


1 


13.55 


24 


41.1 


16.7 


19 


8 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


13.55 


24 


41.1 


16.5 


19 


f 




60% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


13.55 
13.55 


24 
24 


41.1 

41.1 


16.5 
16.6 


19 
19 


5 

6 




4000 RPM 


i 


12.45 


19 


42.7 


18.0 


23 


6 




21.7 ft-lbf 


2 


12.45 


19 


42.4 


18.0 


23 


7 




50% gasoline 


3 


12.45 
12.45 


18 
19 


42.4 
42.5 


18.2 


23 
23 


7 




4000 RPM 


1 


12.8 


14 


40.0 


20.0 


29 


3 




21.7 ft-lb f 


2 


12.8 




40.0 


19.0 


29 


2 




40% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


12.8 
12.8 


14 


40.0 
40.0 


19.8 
19.6 


29 

29 



2 


RPM 


4000 RPM 


1 


12.35 


35 


50.5 


13.7 


13 


7 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


12.35 


35 


50.5 


13.9 


13 


9 




100% gasoline 


3 


12.35 


35 


50.5 


13.9 


13 






22.010 hp 


Avg 


12.35 


35 


50.5 


13.8 


13 


3 


*knnr\t 


45. 113 PSI BMEP 























Gasoline 


Hydrogen 












Consump- 


Consump- 


BSFC 




Exhaust 








tion 




n th 


Temp 










Ibm/hr 


FFhT 


% 


°F 




4000 RPM 


1 


13.192 


1.015 


.645 


18.5 


819 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


13.26 


1.003 


.648 


18.4 


825 




80? gasoline 


3 
Avg 


13.394 


1.015 


.655 

.649 


18.3 
18.4 


823 
822 




4000 RPM 


1 


10.116 


2.388 


.568 


17.8 


818 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


9.908 


2.418 


.560 


17.9 


818 




60?; gasoline 


3 
Avg 


9.956 


2.985 


.588 
.572 


16.3 
17.3 


817 
818 




4000 RPM 


I 


8.129 


3.164 


.513 


17.6 


846 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


8.478 


3.224 


.532 


17.1 


847 




50% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


8.593 


3.224 


.537 
.527 


17.0 
17.2 


849 
847 




4000 RPM 


-1- 


— 4r26i- 


-4r299--- 


-r389- 


■-iSrS- 


845-- 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


6.499 


4.418 


.496 


15.9 


851 




40% gasoline 


Avg 


6.554 


4.418 


.498 
.497 


15.9 
15.9 


852 
852 


RPM 


4000 RPM 


1 


19.058 





.577 


23.2 


974 


Torque 


43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


19.290 





.584 


23.0 


974 




100% gasoline 


3 


18.765 





.568 


23.6 


975 




33.053 hp 


Avg 






.576 


23.3 


974 




67.747 PSI BMEP 
















4000 RPM 


1 


14.682 


1.970 


.504 


22.1 


964 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


14.742 


1.970 


.506 


22.0 


967 




80% gasoline 


3 ' 
Avg 


14.459 


1.970 


.497 
.502 


22.3 
22.1 


969 
967 




4000 RPM 


I 


11.074 


3.821 


.451 


20.6 


982 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


10.454 


3.821 


.432 


21.2 


987 




60% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


10.803 


3.821 


.442 
.442 


20.9 
20.9 


987 
985 




4000 RPM 


1 


9.146 


3.821 


.392 


22.7 


981 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


9.207 


3.821 


.394 


22.6 


985 




50% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


9.092 


3.821 


.391 
.392 


22.7 
22.7 


986 
984 




4000 RPM 
















43.4 ft-lbf 
40% gasoline 





















Intake 


Ignition 
Timing 




A/F 


Air 






in-Hg 


°BTDC 










4000 RPM 


1 


12.1 


28 


48.4 


15.7 


16.9 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


12.05 


28 


48.4 


15.6 






80% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


12.1 
12.1 


28 
28 


48.4 


15.4 
15.6 


16." 6 




4000 RPM 
28.9 ft-lbf 


1 
2 


11.1 
11.1 


20 
20 


47.2 
47.2 


17.3 
17.6 


21.4 
21.9 




60% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


11.1 

11.1 


20 
20 


47.2 
47.2 


16.7 
17.2 


21.8 
21.7 




4000 RPM 


1 


10.05 


16 


49.0 


19.4 


26.9 




28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


10.1 


16 


49.0 


18.7 


25.8 




50% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


10.15 
10.1 


16 

16 


49.0 
49.0 


18.5 
18.9 


25.5 
26.1 




4000 RPM 


1-- 


---9t4-- 


4*. 










28.9 ft-lbf 


2 


9.4 


5* 


46.7 


19.5 


32.8 




40% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


9.4 
9.4 


5* 
5* 


46.7 
46.7 


19.4 
19.5 


32.5 
32.7 


RPM 


4000 RPM 


1 


7.45 


37 


67.1 


15.9 


15.9 


Torque 


43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


7.45 


37 


67.1 


15.7 


15.7 


% fuel 


100% gasoline 


3 


7.4 


37 


67.1 


16.2 


16.2 




33.053 hp 


Avg 


7.45 


37 


67.1 


15.9 


15.9 




67.747 PSI BMEP 
















4000 RPM 


1 


6.35 


25 


64.2 


17.3 


19.6 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


6.35 


25 


64.2 


17.2 


19.5 




80% gasoline 


3 


6.35 


25 


64.2 


17.5 


19.9 






Avg 


6.35 


25 


64.2 


17.3 


19.7 




4000 RPM 


1 


5.9 


15 


59.8 


18.2 


24.4 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


5.9 


15 


59.8 


18.9 


25.9 




60% gasoline 


3 
Avg 


5.9 
5.9 


15 
15 


59.8 
59.8 


18.5 
18.5 


25.0 
25.1 




4000 RPM 


1 


5.9 


6* 


59.5 


20.9 


29.6 




43.4 ft-lbf 


2 


5.85 


7* 


59.5 


20.8 


29.4 




50% gasoline 


3 

Avg 


5.85 
5.85 


7* 
7* 


59.5 
59.5 


21.0 
20.9 


29.8 
29.6 




4000 RPM 
















43.4 ft-lbf 
















40% gasoline 















Of course it is impossible to thank everyone who assi: 
in the completion of this thesis, they ranged from former 
graduate students to factory representatives, but a few spe< 
thanks are in order. First I would like to thank Dr. Herbei 
Ball, my major advisor for this study, for his advice and 
encouragement. I would also like to thank those who served 
on the advisory committee, Dr. J. G. Thompson and Dr. E. C. 
Lindley. Thanks also to Ms. JoAnn Driggers for typing the 



Finally I would like to thank my parents, for without 
their support and encouragement, the long educational proces: 
I have just completed would not have been possible. 



Master of Science 

Thesis: PERFORMANCE OF AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE USING 

MIXTURES OF GASOLINE AND HYDROGEN AS THE FUEL 

Major Field: Mechanical Engineering 

Biographical : 

Personal Data: Born at Manhattan, Kansas, June 18, 1954, 
the son of Malcom W. and Lois P. Harkey. 

Education: Received primary and secondary education in 

the Manhattan, Kansas public school system and gradu- 
ated from Manhattan High School in 1972; received 
the Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineei 
ing from Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 
in December of 1976; completed requirements for the 
Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering 
at Kansas State University in May, 1978. 

he U.S. 
State 
iber of the American Socie' 



Jerry Price Harkey 
B.S., Kansas State University, 1976 



AN ABSTRACT OF A MASTER'S THESIS 



in partial fulfillment of 1 
lirements for the degree 



MASTER OF SCIENCE 



■tment of Mechanical Engine! 

Kansas State University 

Manhattan, Kansas 



Engine performance tests on a 1968, electronically fuel 
injected 96.6 cu-in, horizontally opposed, air cooled Volks- 
wagen engine were conducted. Tests were conducted at engine 
torques of 21.7, 28.9, and 43.4 ft-lbf with fuel that consisted 

mixtures that were used were: 100?.- gasoline, 805. gasoline - 
20% hydrogen, 60% gasoline - 40% hydrogen, 50% gasoline - 
50% hydrogen, 40% gasoline - 60% hydrogen. These tests were 
conducted at engine speeds of from 1500 rpm to 4000 rpm in 
500 rpm increments. The air-gasoline ratio was controlled 
by a KIM 1 microprocessor and associated hardware. The spark 

using 100% gasoline. For tests using gasoline-hydrogen mix- 
manually with the lean best torque procedure. The hydrogen 

fuel system and carburetor. 

It was found that the methods used to control the air- 
fuel ratio and spark advance were satisfactory. It was also 
found that in general intake manifold vacuum and volumetric 

was increased. No dangerously high (equipment threatening) 
temperatures occured during the tests. Brake specific fuel 
consumption decreased as the proportion of hydrogen was in- 



For the most part the 80% gasoline - 20?: hydrogen 
iroduced the highest thermal efficiency. As the 
n of hydrogen was increased it was necessary to retard 



extreme, to maintain engine operation. Finally, it was found 
that when the engine was run on fuels with a high hydrogen 
proportion while operating with a high torque output, it was 
difficult to operate the engine without preignition or backfin 
This last occurance led to recommendations that some method 
be found to control this preignition and backfiring.